Stop service

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description meaningfully adds to that: the operation is asynchronous (returns a numeric event id), the required scope and key type, and the required follow-up step. It does not say whether the stop is graceful or forced, or whether it is reversible, which would be the remaining useful detail.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the action, then the return/next-step contract, then the permission prerequisite. Every sentence contributes information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining the return value (a numeric event id) and the next tool to call. Combined with the prerequisite and the destructive annotation, an agent has everything needed to invoke and sequence this 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 orderNo parameter is fully documented there with type, pattern, length and examples. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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 running VPS), which is unambiguous on its own and implicitly separates it from start_service and restart_service. It stops short of naming those siblings or their scoping criteria, so it is clear but not differentiated explicitly.

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?

It gives concrete operational context: the target must be a running VPS, the call needs services:manage plus a full-access API key, and the returned event id should be followed with wait_for_event. That is actionable guidance, though it never states when to prefer suspend_service over stop_service.

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