stop_service

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only discloses the end state. It says nothing about whether the call blocks until the service is actually down, whether it is async and needs wait_for_service, whether in-flight traffic is drained, or what happens if the service is already stopped.

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 zero waste and the state transition up front. It is perhaps too terse for a mutation tool, but that is a completeness issue rather than a structural one.

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 state-changing operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out whether the stop is synchronous, whether a subsequent wait_for_service or get_service check is needed, and whether the action is reversible. An agent has to infer all of this from sibling names.

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 baseline is 3. The 'name' and 'idempotency_key' semantics, including retry replay behavior, are fully documented in the schema and the description adds nothing beyond it.

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 a service) plus the resulting state transition (desired_state → stopped), which is more than a restated name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like restart_service or remove_service, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this versus restart_service (bounce without changing desired state) or remove_service (tear down entirely), nor on prerequisites such as the service being deployed. The intended use is only implied by the verb.

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