VPS_stopProjectV1

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

The description reveals behavioral traits beyond the input schema: 'gracefully shuts down containers in reverse dependency order' and 'preserving container configurations and data volumes.' This adds value, though it could mention reversibility or prerequisites. No annotations provided, so description carries the burden.

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 three concise sentences, front-loading the main action. Every sentence provides essential information with no redundancy 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is stopped, what is preserved, and the shutdown order. It lacks details on idempotency or error conditions, but is reasonably complete for a stop command.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Stops all running services in a Docker Compose project while preserving container configurations and data volumes.' It uses a specific verb ('stops') and resource ('Docker Compose project') and distinguishes from sibling tools like VPS_deleteProjectV1.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to temporarily halt a project without removing data or configurations.' This implies an alternative (deletion) but does not name the sibling tool explicitly. Still, it clearly indicates when to use this tool.

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