mcs_stop_instance

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

无注解，描述承担了行为披露责任。它说明了后台异步执行、安全存档、以及通过mcs_wait_for_status确认完成的行为，这些都是关键透明信息。但未提及权限要求或错误处理，考虑到工具简单，披露已较充分。

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?

描述结构清晰：第一段说明功能与行为，第二段解释参数。信息密度高，没有冗余词句，每个句子都有价值。

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?

对于只有一个参数的简单工具，描述涵盖了用途、使用场景、参数解释和异步确认行为。存在输出schema，无需描述返回值，因此信息完整，代理可正确调用。

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覆盖率0%，但描述在Args部分明确说明了instance_name的含义（实例名称或UUID）并给出示例（如'生存服'），完全补偿了schema的缺失，极大帮助代理正确填参。

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?

描述明确说明了动词（停止）、资源（Minecraft服务器实例）以及具体动作（发送停止指令、安全存档）。与兄弟工具如mcs_kill_instance（强制停止）区分开来，突出'正常停止'，目的清晰且独特。

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?

描述说明了典型使用场景（'关掉XX服'等请求），并指出异步执行及如何确认完成（配合mcs_wait_for_status）。虽未明确说明何时不使用（如强制停止场景），但通过'正常停止'隐含了与kill的区别，整体指引清晰。

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