stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses nothing beyond the verb. It doesn't say whether the stop is graceful or forced, whether traffic/connections are drained, whether the service can be resumed with 'start', or what permissions are required for this mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but the brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient precision.

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 mutation tool on live infrastructure with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain reversibility, shutdown semantics, and error behavior. None of that is present, so an agent cannot predict the outcome of calling it.

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 schema itself explains the 'service' parameter including the `project.service` format. The description adds nothing beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('a service'), so the action is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from sibling tools like 'restart', 'start', or 'delete_service', leaving the agent to infer the boundary on its own.

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 on when to use stop versus restart or delete_service, nor any stated preconditions (e.g. service must be running, or already-stopped services are a no-op). The single sentence provides only the bare action, no context for selection.

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