Stop a lab

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 known; the description goes well beyond that by enumerating exactly what is destroyed (containers, networks, volumes), what data is irrecoverably lost (work done inside the containers), and what survives (files in the lab folder). That loss/preserve distinction is the single most decision-relevant fact for a destructive call and would not be knowable from the annotations alone.

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?

One dense sentence states the action, the destruction scope and the data-loss caveat, followed by a short imperative. Nothing is redundant and the most important content (what is lost) is front-loaded inside the first clause.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety/idempotency profile. For a single-parameter destructive tool, the description supplies the missing pieces — destruction scope, data loss, the confirmation requirement — so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter, 'lab', and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining it is the name as returned by list_labs. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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') plus the exact scope of what is torn down: containers, networks and volumes. It is clearly distinct from compose_down and stop_container in resource, but it never differentiates itself from the nearby sibling lab_reset, which an agent could plausibly reach for the same intent.

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 supplies one real usage constraint — 'Confirm with the person first' — which tells the agent this is an interactive, confirmation-required action. However, it gives no when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as lab_reset or stop_container, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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