Stop VPS

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Stop' without mentioning whether the stop is graceful, whether data is preserved, or whether it affects billing. This is a significant omission for a mutating action.

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 one short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It is concise yet adds little value, similar to a minimal restatement rather than a helpful explanation. The structure is fine, but the content is too sparse to earn a higher score.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is still inadequate. It lacks context about the lifecycle of a VPS (e.g., how to resume, differences from restart), the consequences of stopping, and any practical details such as whether the vm_id refers to the same ID used in vps_list. The absence of an output schema and annotations further increases the need for descriptive context, which is not provided.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter vm_id, with a clear description 'Virtual machine ID'. The tool description adds nothing beyond this, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate—no extra context is provided, but none is required since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 'Stop a virtual machine' is essentially a restatement of the title 'Stop VPS' and the tool name. It provides a verb and resource but adds no new information, failing to differentiate from sibling tools like vps_start or vps_restart beyond the obvious action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vps_start, vps_restart, or vps_docker_stop. The description provides no context about prerequisites, side effects, or selection criteria, leaving the agent without decision support.

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