stop_compose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing. It does not state whether stopping is graceful or forced, whether running containers are destroyed or preserved, what permissions are required, or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

At two words it is certainly short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no structure to evaluate and nothing is front-loaded because nothing is said.

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?

A mutating operation with no annotations, no output schema, and one fully undocumented required parameter is completely inadequate. The description supplies none of the operational context an agent needs to invoke this safely or 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the sole required parameter 'id' is an untyped-in-meaning number with no documentation anywhere. The description does not say whether this id is a compose project id, a numeric index from list_composes, or a name, leaving the caller unable to construct a valid call.

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 is a tautological restatement of the tool name ('stop_compose' -> 'Stop compose'), adding no verb-resource detail beyond it. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as restart_compose, remove_compose, or start_compose, and never explains what a 'compose' unit is in this context.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling alternatives (restart_compose, remove_compose, start_compose) that an agent must choose between. A caller gets no basis for selecting this tool over its many compose-related siblings.

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