Stop a Compose project

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

Beyond annotations that already mark this as destructive and idempotent, the description discloses exactly what is removed, that volumes entail data deletion, that the server asks for person confirmation naming what goes, and that refusal results in no action. This is rich behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then details the volume and confirmation behavior. It is compact, with no filler, and every clause adds operational meaning.

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 that annotations declare destructiveness and idempotency and an output schema exists, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, volume data impact, confirmation requirements, and no-op behavior on refusal.

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 covers folder and file adequately, but the volumes boolean has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining that volumes removes volumes and their data and triggers a server-side confirmation, adding meaning beyond the bare boolean.

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 and resource: stop and remove a Compose project's containers and networks, optionally its volumes and data. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on individual containers, images, networks, or compose_up.

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?

It gives clear usage context for a destructive operation by instructing the agent to confirm with the person first, and it explains the server-side confirmation flow when volumes are included. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as remove_container or prune, but the scope is clear enough to route correctly.

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