deployment_stop

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

The description provides substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it sends only {action: stop}, the server rejects already-stopped deployments with a 400 rather than succeeding, stopping preserves URL/configuration, and it still counts toward deployment quota. It also notes that it ships ungated, which the destructiveHint=true annotation doesn't convey. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

While the description is longer than average, every sentence earns its place: scope, unreachable actions, side effects, server behavior, quota impact, and reversal unavailability. It front-loads the core action (stop) and the default-owner behavior before diving into caveats, making it dense with useful information rather than padded.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers invocation (owner/deployment or slug, default owner), behavioral effects (quota, config/URL preservation), edge cases (already-stopped 400), endpoint constraints (only stop action), and the tool set's lack of a start counterpart. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'deployment' is already fully described in the schema ('Deployment ref by owner/deployment or a bare slug'). The description repeats this without adding extra semantics like format examples or validation rules, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Stop') and resource ('a deployment'), and identifies the exact input forms (owner/deployment or bare slug). It also distinguishes itself by noting the endpoint's start/resize/replace actions are unreachable, which sets it apart from sibling tools like deployment_start or deployment_get.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use this tool (to stop a deployment, acting as a money-off switch) and what happens with it, including that starting is unavailable in this tool set. It also references sibling tools like training_cancel and export_cancel as consistent with the ungated behavior, giving clear context for an agent choosing among tools.

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