Stop a container

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

The 10-second clean-stop window and the human-confirmation requirement are behavioral facts not present in the annotations, which only state readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false. It does not say what happens after the 10 seconds elapse (force kill?) or how an already-stopped container is handled, but the core behavior is disclosed and consistent with annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its timing, followed by the consent requirement. Nothing is wasted and there is no filler.

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 need not be explained, and the parameter is fully documented. The only gap is post-timeout behavior and how already-stopped containers are treated, which would round out an otherwise complete definition.

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 100% with a single well-documented `container` parameter (name or id, as returned by list). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the 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 an existing container") plus the operational detail of a 10-second grace period. It is clearly distinct from siblings like restart_container, remove_container, and start_container by verb, though it never names them.

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?

"Confirm with the person first" gives one concrete precondition for use, which is valuable. However, it offers no guidance on choosing stop_container over restart_container, remove_container, or a forced kill when a container is stuck.

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