Stop deploy

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds context by specifying exactly what is stopped (server and tunnel) and that the record is preserved for inspection. It also notes the backend limitation, which is beyond the 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 concise sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every phrase adds value: the action, the 'all' option, the record retention, and the exclusion. No redundancy.

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 mutation with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effect (record kept), and a usage exclusion. It does not describe reversibility or return behavior, but these are minor for a stop operation.

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 input schema already fully documents both parameters (all and name) with descriptions. The tool description references 'all=true' but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Given 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (stop) on a specific resource (local server and tunnel of a deploy) and includes the 'all=true' option to stop all deploys. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'remove' (destructive) and 'status' (inspection).

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 provides an explicit exclusion ('Not applicable to the workers backend') and implies the use case by describing what it does. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or contrast with 'remove' beyond stating the record is kept, which hints at non-destructiveness.

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