Emergency stop applications

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the confirmation behavior and 'blast radius' context, which informs the agent about the impact and user interaction. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences front-load the primary action and scope, followed by a useful behavioral note. Every word earns its place with no repetition or 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and strong annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: scope, optional restriction, and confirmation behavior. It does not mention return values or asynchronous nature, but the simplicity and annotation coverage make it sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for project_uuid with the description 'Restrict to a single project.' The main description reiterates this as 'optionally restricted to one project,' but adds no new semantic details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 states the specific action (stop) and the resource (every running application), with an optional restriction to one project. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stopApplication by emphasizing the plural/global scope.

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 clearly conveys when to use this tool: when you need to stop all running applications, optionally within a project. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like stopApplication, so it falls short of an explicit when/when-not comparison.

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