Stop Pod

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses billing behavior: pod billing stops but attached storage keeps being billed. It also discloses the asynchronous nature of the change, the polling pattern, and the retry semantics around operation_id and operation_status.

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 front-loaded with the core action and scope, then follows with the delete_pod alternative, async polling, and operation_id rules. Every sentence provides actionable guidance for correctly invoking or retrying the tool.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values, and the annotations already cover safety/idempotency. It is nearly complete for an async mutation tool, but the `workspace` parameter remains unexplained.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does substantial compensation: it defines `pod` as the pod_name from the pods tool and explains operation_id reuse and retry behavior in detail. However, the optional `workspace` parameter is never described, so one of the three parameters remains undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: stop a running pod by scaling to zero. It also distinguishes this from delete_pod, which removes the pod entirely, so an agent can select between them without opening either schema.

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?

It explicitly says to use delete_pod to remove the pod entirely, and explains that stopping is asynchronous and requires polling pods for `stopped`. The operation_id guidance also tells the agent how to handle preview/confirmation/retries and timeout recovery.

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