Stop the server

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the key behavioral trait: the server stops and remains offline until pz_restart is called. This is a critical side effect that the agent must know, and it is clearly stated.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant wording. Every sentence adds value: one states the purpose and the other gives usage and consequence guidance.

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 output schema exists and the input schema is fully covered, the description provides all required context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly: what it does, when to use it, and the lasting effect. No significant gaps remain.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'message' and 'service_id'. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema states, so a baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('gameserver') to clearly state the action. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling pz_restart by explaining that stopping is for explicit shutdown, not for applying config changes.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Call this only when the user explicitly wants the server down' and 'to apply config changes use pz_restart instead'. It also states the consequence that the server stays offline until pz_restart, defining the only recovery path.

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