deployado_stop_service

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds almost nothing beyond what annotations provide – no mention of downtime, whether the stop is graceful or forced, or what happens if the service is already stopped. Given the lower bar when annotations are rich, this is thin but not incorrect.

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. It is efficient, though efficiency here comes at the cost of under-specification rather than tight, complete phrasing.

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, non-idempotent operation with no output schema, an agent would want to know effects (downtime, impact on deployments, reversibility via start_service) and error behavior. None of that is present, leaving the definition adequate only in the narrowest sense.

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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('Service ID (UUID)'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about the identifier or its resolution.

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 running service') and is clearly distinct from sibling operations like start_service or restart_service. It lacks any detail about scope (what a 'service' is here, what stopping affects), so it stops short of fully differentiating behavior.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus restart_service or rollback, and no stated prerequisites such as the service needing to be running. The only implicit cue is the word 'running', which hints at a precondition but is not stated as one.

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