Stop application

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It doesn't mention side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous. For a state-changing tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is maximally concise and easy to scan.

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?

The tool has a simple signature (1 required param, no output schema) but no annotations. The description is too minimal to be complete for an agent: it omits behavioral consequences (e.g., can the app be restarted?), return values, and any prerequisites. It is only marginally viable.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description only says 'by UUID,' which minimally indicates the parameter identifies the application but adds no detail beyond the schema's 'string' type. It doesn't explain the format or provenance of the UUID.

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 ('Stop') and resource ('application'), making the core action clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like startApplication and restartApplication, though it doesn't explicitly define the scope of 'stop' (e.g., terminating a running instance vs. pausing).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states the action without context, exclusions, or references to sibling tools like startApplication or cancelDeployment.

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