Stop failover LaunchAgent

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by requiring a specific confirmation value and mutation opt-in, and by clarifying that Clash Verge is not changed. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences with all information front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant or vague wording.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, the presence of annotations, and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It covers the action and the confirmation requirement, but omits the semantics of config_path, which prevents a perfect score.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives explicit meaning for the confirmation parameter ('confirmation=STOP_LAUNCH_AGENT') but says nothing about config_path, leaving a gap in understanding. This is partial compensation but not complete.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('the monitor'), and adds the scoping detail 'without changing Clash Verge' that distinguishes it from uninstall or modification tools. However, no sibling tool is explicitly named, so it falls slightly short of full differentiation.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: 'Requires mutation opt-in and confirmation=STOP_LAUNCH_AGENT', which tells the agent what must be supplied. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like uninstall_monitor or simulate_failover, so it lacks a 'when-not-to-use' statement.

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