whale_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the destructive nature ('stop/destroy') and the ownership requirement, but says nothing about idempotency, whether it errors when no instance is running, or whether instance state is lost.

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?

One efficient, front-loaded sentence with the destructive verb and scope before the parameter note. The '[ctfd-whale]' namespace tag is minor overhead but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and with a single documented parameter the definition is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is failure behavior — what happens if no instance exists — which an agent would need.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'challenge' string parameter. It does: the parameter accepts either an id or a name, and must reference a challenge the caller owns — real meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 pair (stop/destroy) and resource (dynamic instance) with the scoping constraint 'for a challenge you own'. It is clearly distinct from whale_start and whale_list by implication, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you want to tear down an instance you own. The ownership prerequisite is stated, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of an alternative path.

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