winops_svc_stop

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the key behavioral trait that it waits for the service to reach the stopped state, with a timeout parameter. It also discloses the return format. This goes beyond the structured annotations and is valuable for agent expectation management.

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 two sections plus an example, with no fluff. It front-loads the main purpose, then gives return format and a minimal example. Every element contributes to understanding 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 the simple operation, the description is largely sufficient: it covers the action, the wait behavior, the parameters (through schema), and the return format (inline). It lacks discussion of error handling or permissions, but these are not critical for a basic stop operation and can be inferred from the return status.

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 both 'service_name' and 'wait_timeout' are documented in the schema. The description adds a concrete example (stop(service_name='wuauserv')) which illustrates usage but does not clarify additional semantics or edge cases not already captured.

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 clear, specific action: 'Stop a Windows service and wait for it to reach stopped state.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like winops_svc_start, winops_svc_restart, and winops_svc_status by naming the exact operation (stop) and the expected outcome.

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 usage (stop a service) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, such as administrative privileges, or scenarios where this tool is preferable to winops_svc_restart. The example is helpful but does not address selection criteria.

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