Stop a Compose project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value the annotations don't: it specifies what destruction actually entails (volumes and their data are removed only when the volumes flag is set) and mandates human confirmation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the destructive variant and the confirmation requirement. Every clause earns its place, though the phrasing 'saying whether the data goes' is slightly informal.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the key destructive nuance and the confirmation requirement, making it nearly complete for a 3-parameter tool.

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 67%, with the file and folder parameters documented but the volumes boolean left bare in the schema. The description compensates by explaining the consequence of volumes=true (volume data is destroyed), adding meaning beyond the structured field.

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 names a specific verb pair (stop and remove) and the exact resources affected (a Compose project's containers, networks, and optionally volumes), distinguishing it clearly from sibling single-resource tools like stop_container, remove_container, and remove_volume.

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 provides a concrete invocation guideline — confirm with the person first and state whether data is destroyed — which is useful. However, it never states when to use compose_down versus alternatives such as lab_down or the individual container/volume removal tools, so alternative routing is left to inference.

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