down

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is structurally covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it stops running services and explicitly does not edit the project's files, plus the restart path via `up`. It does not contradict the destructive annotation because stopping services is itself an impactful operation.

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?

The description is three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every clause contributes actionable guidance: scope, non-effect on files, prerequisite status check, preview option, and restart path.

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?

For a two-parameter stop operation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, optional scoping, dry-run preview, file-safety behavior, prerequisite check, and restart alternative. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces projectPath as optional project selection and dryRun as preview, but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Stop the running stack.' It also clarifies optional project selection via projectPath, distinguishing the operation from siblings like `up`, `status`, and `resource_restart`.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use `status` first to check whether a stack is running, set `dryRun` to preview, and use `up` to start again. These are concrete when-to-use and alternative-tool instructions.

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