aem_bundle_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only restates the action. It does not disclose the operational impact of stopping a bundle, whether the action is reversible, what happens to dependent services, authentication requirements, or any side effects. Like the 'update_drive' calibration case, this mutation-style tool needs more behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition of the tool name beyond what is necessary. It is concise and readable, though it sacrifices operational detail that other dimensions penalize.

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?

The tool has four parameters, zero required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides no guidance on parameter combinations or invocation conditions. An agent cannot confidently determine whether bundleId, symbolicName, aliases, or instances need to be supplied together. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, such as how bundleId relates to symbolicName or how aliases relate to instances, so the 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 ('OSGi bundles on AEM instances'), making the tool's core action unmistakable. The action also differentiates it clearly from its lifecycle siblings such as start, restart, refresh, uninstall, list, and details.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use stop versus the closely related bundle lifecycle tools (restart, start, uninstall, refresh). No contextual triggers, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned, so an agent must infer the right choice from the tool name alone.

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