stop_application

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the confirm condition as a safety measure, but does not explain what happens when stopped (e.g., process termination, state change) or whether it is reversible. Lacks details on preconditions or side effects.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a conditional. No unnecessary words; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is mostly adequate. It covers the core action and a critical configuration. However, it could be improved by briefly stating what happens to the application (e.g., graceful shutdown) or mentioning idempotency.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond reinforcing the confirm condition. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for missing schema details.

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 verb 'Stop' and resource 'application', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like start_application and restart_application by focusing on stopping.

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 context on when the confirm parameter is required (COOLIFY_REQUIRE_CONFIRM=true), helping with safe usage. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like restart_application or when the application is already stopped.

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