stop-machine

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key reversible outcome ('can be started again'), which is useful, but it does not mention what happens if the machine is already stopped, whether resources are released, or any side effects beyond the stop operation.

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 concise sentence front-loads the core action and adds a relevant parenthetical about restartability. There is no wasted text.

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 lifecycle command with a fully documented schema and output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It lacks only minor details like behavior when the machine is already stopped, but nothing essential is missing for a correct call.

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 the schema already fully documents both 'name' and 'target'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('running machine'), and the parenthetical clarifies that stopping is reversible. This clearly distinguishes it from delete-machine and create-machine without ambiguity.

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 indicates this tool is for stopping a running machine, and it names create-machine as the way to start it again. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool, but the context and alternative are clear.

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