env_down

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the operation is clean, non-destructive, preserves disk and list placement, and is reversible via env_start. This is meaningful context beyond the bare tool name, though it could further clarify process termination or edge cases.

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 compact sentences that lead with the action and the key persistence guarantee. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundant schema restatement.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description gives the essential operational context: what happens (shutdown), what is preserved (disk and list position), and how to reverse it (env_start). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly without needing more detail.

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?

There is only one parameter, 'name', and the schema already documents it as 'name of the environment' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, 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 uses a specific action verb ('Shut') with a clear resource ('an environment') and adds a key differentiator: it keeps the disk and the environment's place in the list. This distinguishes it from destructive siblings like env_rm and aligns it with env_start for lifecycle management.

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?

The description conveys when to use this tool: for a clean, non-destructive shutdown that preserves state. It explicitly references env_start as the way to bring the environment back, which helps an agent choose between down, start, and remove. It does not explicitly mention destructive alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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