stop_recipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool disables a recipe, but omits whether the operation is reversible, idempotent, whether it generates immediately, or any permission requirements. While not contradictory, the minimal behavioral context is only marginally adequate.

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 sentence that includes both the action and the endpoint. No filler or redundant explanation; it is front-loaded and efficient.

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 lacks an output schema and the description does not mention the response format, possible errors, or the expected outcome of the stop operation. For a simple state-changing action, it is minimally viable, but it leaves the agent guessing about what happens after 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?

The schema has one integer parameter 'id' with 0% description coverage. The description, via the endpoint :id, implies it is the recipe identifier, but it does not explicitly state a human-readable definition. Since it is a single parameter, the meaning is easily inferable, but the description doesn't add explicit semantic value.

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 ('recipe'), and includes the exact endpoint (PUT /api/recipes/:id/stop), which is unambiguous. The verb clearly distinguishes it from siblings like start_recipe and force_run_recipe.

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 this tool versus alternatives, nor mention of prerequisites such as the recipe needing to be started. It does not explicitly state that start_recipe would reverse the stop, or that force_run_recipe might override a stopped state.

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