Stop application

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

Beyond the annotations (which already flag destructive/idempotent/open-world), the description discloses that stopping interrupts service, that the operation is queued/asynchronous and must be polled via installation and events, that it requires the applications:manage permission, and that a client-global idempotency key is needed. These are concrete behavioral facts an agent cannot infer from the structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, consequence, async workflow, prerequisites. The purpose leads, and nothing is redundant or 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 no-output-schema mutation tool, the description supplies the needed operational picture: permission requirement, idempotency, service interruption, and the polling loop to follow up. It omits any mention of alternatives or how the eventual result is surfaced, keeping it a step short of fully complete.

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 all four parameters are already fully documented, including the confirmed and idempotencyKey semantics. The description echoes the idempotency-key and confirmation requirements but adds no format, range, or constraint detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Stop an owned managed application") and adds an ownership scope qualifier. The intent is unambiguous relative to start/restart siblings by plain semantics, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with restart_application, uninstall_application, or suspend, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives clear context for when to invoke it (you want to interrupt service) plus operational guidance: confirm the interruption, then poll installation and events until the queued operation completes. It stops short of naming exclusions or alternatives such as restart or suspend, so it is clear context without explicit when-not guidance.

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