stop_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Stop a running instance' without covering side effects, reversibility, asynchronous nature, required permissions, or what happens if the instance is already stopped. This is a significant gap for a state-changing operation.

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: a single purpose sentence followed by a compact args list. No redundant information exists; every sentence serves a clear function, and it front-loads the main action.

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 tool with an output schema and only two parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. It does not mention preconditions like 'instance must be running' or post-conditions, but these are not critical for invocation given the output schema exists. It is adequate but could add a note about idempotency or errors.

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 input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description explicitly explains both parameters: instance_id as the ID of the instance to stop, and zone with an example and default behavior ('If not provided, uses default zone'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and adds practical guidance.

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 uses a clear verb ('Stop') and resource ('a running instance'), making it unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like start_instance, delete_instance, get_instance, and list_instances, all of which serve different actions.

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 implies usage through the name and action, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools like start_instance for the opposite operation.

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