stop_instance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'stop,' which is a mutation, but does not disclose whether it errors on already-stopped instances, any side effects, permission requirements, or how the output schema looks. The description is insufficient for an agent to anticipate behavior fully.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could benefit from a brief parameter explanation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks parameter semantics and usage context, which are gaps for an agent to use it correctly without additional inference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has one parameter 'name' with no description, and the tool description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema coverage, the description should clarify what 'name' refers to (e.g., instance name), but it does not. No added value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Stop a running Multipass instance' clearly states the action (stop) and the resource (Multipass instance). It directly distinguishes from sibling tools like start_instance or resume_instance by specifying the 'running' state.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool should be used when the instance is running, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if already stopped) or provide alternatives like use start_instance to start a stopped instance. No guidance on prerequisites or fallback is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.