yougpu_stop_instance

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral details (keeps disk, may reserve storage cost), but it does not disclose other relevant traits such as the instance being resumable via start_instance or what happens to compute billing.

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, front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical caveat. Every word serves a purpose, making it both concise and well-structured.

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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the core function and the key distinction from delete. However, it omits an explicit note about reversibility (start_instance) and does not clarify the instance_id source, which would make it fully complete.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the instance_id parameter at all. While the parameter name is self-explanatory within context, the rule requires the description to compensate for low coverage; it fails to do so, leaving the user to infer how to identify the instance.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('a running instance'), clearly stating the tool's function. The parenthetical 'keeps disk' distinguishes this from sibling delete_instance, so it differentiates well from related tools.

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 implies usage context by noting it keeps disk and may reserve storage cost, contrasting with delete. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like start_instance or delete_instance, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., instance must exist and be running).

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