Stop application

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context: the site goes down, and docker_cleanup prunes networks/volumes afterwards. It doesn't detail reversibility or permission requirements, but the core behavioral impact is disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the most important consequence (site goes down), and the docker_cleanup note is concise. No wasted words.

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 stop operation with annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the key consequences and recovery path. It doesn't mention whether the operation is reversible or if there are prerequisites, but the essential information for an agent to decide and invoke is present.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the behavioral consequence of docker_cleanup (prunes networks/volumes) and the application parameter's fuzzy matching is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool stops an application's containers and explicitly notes the site goes down until start_application or deploy. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_application, restart_application, and deploy.

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 when to use it (when you need to take an application down) and mentions the recovery path via start_application or deploy. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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