portainer_stack_stop

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

The description indicates a state-changing action but does not disclose what stopping a stack actually does (e.g., whether it scales services to zero, retains data, is reversible, or affects running containers). With no annotations, the behavioral side effects are largely unspecified.

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 extremely concise, with a single purpose statement and two brief parameter explanations. No unnecessary words or redundant information are present.

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 description omits important context about the operation's effects, whether it is idempotent, how to recover afterward, and what the output/response indicates. Since no output schema is provided and no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden but leaves these gaps.

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 parameter descriptions add some meaning beyond the raw schema, especially endpoint_id ('derived from the stack itself if omitted'), which clarifies an important default behavior. However, stack_id's description mostly restates the parameter name, so the added semantic value is only partial.

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 a specific verb ('stop') and resource ('a running stack'), and the sibling list includes start, update, delete, and inspect operations, making it easy to distinguish this tool from related stack operations.

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 stop versus other stack lifecycle operations such as start, update, or delete. It does not explain scenarios, prerequisites, or why one might stop a stack instead of removing it.

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