Stop project

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds useful context beyond those flags: it preserves data/configurations, shuts down gracefully, and stops containers in reverse dependency order. This meaningfully informs an agent about side effects and safety.

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?

Three concise sentences. The core action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct value: what it stops, how it behaves, and when to use it. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool with fully documented schema and clear annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the operation's effect, preservation guarantees, shutdown ordering, and intended use. It could go slightly deeper on what happens if the project is already stopped, but this is not a significant gap.

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 well documented. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, but with full schema coverage, the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb ('stops all running services') and a specific resource ('Docker Compose project'), and emphasizes preservation of container configurations and data volumes. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like VPS_deleteProjectV1 or VPS_stopVirtualMachineV1.

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?

Gives explicit guidance: 'Use this to temporarily halt a project without removing data or configurations.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'temporarily halt' framing makes the use case clear.

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