Stop Environment

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

Goes meaningfully beyond the annotations by naming the on_stop job, the likely teardown of the deployed app, and the exact behavioral difference of force=true (skips on_stop). The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the description correctly focuses on mechanism rather than repeating the safety profile; only permissions and post-stop state are unaddressed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its consequence, then the flag variant, then the pre-check. No filler or redundancy; each clause contributes distinct information.

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 destructive, single-required-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key risk (on_stop teardown) and the force escape hatch. It leaves a gap on how project_id and environment_id are identified/supplied and on what a successful stop returns or how to verify it, which matters given no output schema exists.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does so only for force — the one genuinely ambiguous flag — explaining that it bypasses on_stop. environment_id and project_id (the latter accepting string-or-null, number versus path unclear) receive no explanation at all.

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 an environment") plus the concrete consequence (runs on_stop, tears down the deployed app). It does not differentiate itself from the nearby gitlab_delete_environment or gitlab_stop_stale_environments siblings, so an agent must still infer when a stop differs from a delete.

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?

Offers a useful procedural hint ("Recommended pre-check: gitlab_get_environment") and explains the force variant, which is effectively a when-to-use-which choice. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over delete_environment or stop_stale_environments, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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