stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals a cascade effect ('affected dependents'), which the agent could not infer from the name alone, but it omits whether the action requires confirmation, whether it is reversible, and what the safety/auth profile is.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action leads and the mechanism follows. Nothing extraneous, though the terse form leaves behavioral gaps unaddressed rather than being maximally informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the 3-param surface is simple. However, for a consequential mutation with no annotations and a confirmation_token in the schema, the description should confirm the plan/confirmation prerequisite and reversibility, which it does not.

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%, so the schema already documents runtime, selectors, and confirmation_token. The description only loosely references 'selected services' and the 'resolved plan' without adding format, matching, or token-lifecycle detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Stop selected services and affected dependents'), which tells an agent what it does. It is distinguishable from siblings like 'start'/'restart', but it never contrasts itself against 'down', which likely also stops things, so the boundary is not fully pinned down.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no stated alternatives. The phrase 'using the resolved application plan' hints at a plan prerequisite and the confirmation_token implies a two-step flow, but the agent is left to infer that rather than being told.

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