Stop Adapter

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it details state-dependent actions (waiting for STOPPED, no-op on STOPPED, raising InvalidStateError on DEAD/DELETED) and implies idempotency. This is genuinely helpful for an agent predicting side effects and error cases.

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 compact and well-structured: a short purpose statement followed by a bullet list of state-based behaviors. Every line conveys useful 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?

The description fully covers the tool's behavior across all adapter states, including error handling. With a complete input schema and presence of an output schema, no additional context is needed. It is a self-contained, complete description.

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% (both 'name' and 'timeout' have clear descriptions). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 an adapter') and the resource ('Itential Platform'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like start_adapter and restart_adapter by focusing specifically on stopping and by detailing state-based behavior.

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 gives clear context on when the tool is appropriate by explaining behavior for RUNNING, STOPPED, and DEAD/DELETED states. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the state-based exclusions (e.g., cannot stop DEAD/DELETED) provide practical guidance.

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