Stop a lab

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by detailing exactly what is destroyed (containers, networks, volumes), what is lost (work inside them) versus what is retained (files in the lab folder), and adds a unique behavior: a server-side confirmation prompt that names what will be removed, with no action taken if declined.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and consequences, followed by the confirmation behavior. No wasted words and every part is useful.

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 annotations (destructive, idempotent), the output schema, and the full schema coverage, the description covers everything needed: consequences, retained data, and the confirmation safety mechanism.

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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema; the description adds no extra meaning or formatting details beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Stop a lab and remove its containers, networks and volumes'), and the scope is clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like lab_reset or compose_down, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

Usage is implied by the action described and the confirmation prompt, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lab_reset or individual container removal tools.

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