pier_stop_app

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the container is removed, persistent volumes are preserved, and the operation is reversible by restart. It stops short of stating that non-persistent container filesystem data is lost or describing the resulting app status, but the core destructive effect is clear.

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?

Three short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The primary effect is front-loaded, followed by the persistence caveat and then the recovery path.

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 one-parameter shutdown tool, the description covers the essential context: what happens, what persists, and how to undo it. It could mention loss of non-persistent container data and return-value behavior, but neither is necessary for correct invocation.

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 already describes appId with 100% coverage, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that. This matches the baseline for fully schema-documented parameters.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Stop an app and remove its container') and differentiates from permanent deletion by noting persistent volumes are kept and teardown is temporary. An agent can distinguish this from pier_delete_app and pier_start_or_restart_app without opening schemas.

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 names start_or_restart_app as the recovery path and frames the operation as a temporary teardown, giving clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly contrast with pier_delete_app or state when not to use it, but the persistent-volume/temporary framing is sufficient guidance.

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