stop-pod

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by stating that the pod and disk persist and GPU billing stops, which are behavioral traits beyond the annotations' binary hints. No contradiction exists.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences, no redundant words, and front-loads the action. Every word serves a purpose: 'Stop a running pod' is the core action; the second sentence adds key behavioral context.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential outcome: pod stops, disk persists, GPU billing stops. It could mention idempotency or prerequisites, but idempotency is already in annotations. Without annotations, a 3 would be appropriate, but annotations provide safety net.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single required parameter (podId), with a clear description 'ID of the pod to stop'. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Stop' with the resource 'pod', clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes from related tools like delete-pod (which destroys) by noting that the pod and disk persist, and differentiates from start-pod and restart-pod by focusing on stopping. Sibling context confirms these distinctions.

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 when to use this tool (to stop a running pod while retaining resources) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tool names. The mention of persistence and billing cessation offers implicit guidance, but lacks direct comparison to tools like delete-pod or start-pod.

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