bridge_stop

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

With only readOnlyHint=false in annotations, the description usefully discloses the spawn-vs-attach ownership rule, which annotations cannot convey. However it says nothing about whether the stop is graceful or forced, whether it is idempotent, or what happens if the bridge only attached to the instance.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the scope caveat follows immediately. Every clause carries information the 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?

For a no-parameter, no-output-schema action tool, the description covers the one non-obvious behavioral constraint. It could go slightly further on error behavior when the instance was attached rather than spawned, but nothing essential is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter confusion is possible.

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 a precisely scoped resource (the instance this bridge spawned), which is enough to separate it from disconnect-style siblings. It does not name bridge_disconnect or bridge_shutdown explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference from the negative clause.

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 sentence 'Never stops an instance it merely attached to' is an explicit when-not condition that tells the agent this tool only applies to spawned instances. It stops short of naming the alternative tool to use for attached instances, leaving that to implication.

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