deployment_stop

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses that stopping preserves URL and configuration, still consumes quota, is a 'money-off switch', and that re-stopping returns a server 400 rather than a false success. This is exactly the behavioral context that annotations alone cannot convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and each following sentence adds distinct, load-bearing information (action payload, side effects, error behavior, reversibility). It is dense, though the 'ships ungated' rationale sentence is the most internal-facing and slightly indulgent.

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?

For a destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers operation, side effects, error semantics, and non-reversibility. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and to understand the consequences.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning: the owner segment defaults to the account owner and a bare slug is accepted, which clarifies format beyond the schema's restatement.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Stop a deployment') and clarifies the accepted reference forms (owner/deployment or bare slug). It further disambiguates by naming what this tool does NOT do (start/resize/replace), so an agent can separate it from sibling deployment tools without opening schemas.

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?

It explicitly scopes usage ('Sends only {action: stop}'), names unavailable alternatives (start/resize/replace unreachable; reversing via start not in this tool set), and references sibling tools (training_cancel, export_cancel) as precedent for the ungated behavior. It gives clear when-not guidance but not a full routing matrix against other tools.

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