Stop Application

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable state-machine behavior, including waiting for STOPPED state, no-op behavior, and InvalidStateError for dead/deleted applications, going beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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 concise and well-structured, with a one-sentence purpose followed by bullet-point state behaviors. Every sentence adds value and is scannable.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description provides thorough context: state-dependent behavior, error conditions, and timeout semantics. This is complete for a simple stop tool.

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 schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by linking the timeout parameter to the wait-for-STOPPED behavior, enhancing understanding of how timeout is used.

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 tool stops an application on Itential Platform, using a specific verb+resource. The state-based behavior further clarifies scope, and it is distinct from sibling tools like start_application, restart_application, and stop_adapter.

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 explicitly tells when the tool takes action (RUNNING state), when it's a no-op (STOPPED), and when it errors (DEAD/DELETED). This is clear context for usage, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison.

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