bare_metal_stop_bare_metal_server

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by explaining smart identifier resolution (label, hostname, or UUID) and noting the return value. However, it does not disclose the side effects of stopping (e.g., state change, reversibility via start, potential billing impact) or any error conditions. For a state-changing operation, this is only partially transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose is the first sentence, followed by the key identifier-resolution behavior. The Args/Returns block is minimal and adds no fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter operation with an output schema present, the description covers the essential information: what the tool does, what the input means, and what the return value looks like. The only gaps are edge-case behavior (e.g., already-stopped server) and prerequisites, but these are minor given the low complexity.

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 compensate. It meaningfully expands on the bare 'string' type by specifying the parameter accepts a label, hostname, or UUID. This gives an agent concrete guidance on what values to provide. It stops short of examples or format constraints, but is otherwise strong.

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 the exact action ('Stop a bare metal server') with a specific verb and resource, and the additional 'smart identifier resolution' detail clearly sets it apart from sibling lifecycle operations like start, reboot, and delete. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description implies the tool is used to power down a bare metal server, which is a distinct lifecycle operation among siblings. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose stop over reboot or delete, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage context is clear but not fully articulated.

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