stop-zopio-app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the core behavior (stopping a running Zopio app) and the all-or-specific scope, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or impact on data/configuration, so the agent is left to infer those aspects.

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 short sentences, front-loads the main verb and resource, and every sentence adds meaningful information. There is no filler or unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what action is performed, what targets are possible, and what happens if the optional parameter is omitted. It could add a note about verification or recovery steps, but the complexity is low enough that the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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% description coverage and already explains the appType enum and the default behavior when omitted. The tool description essentially restates this (specific or all applications) without adding additional semantic detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 clearly states the action ('durdurur') and the resource ('Zopio uygulamasını'), and distinguishes this from the sibling tools by specifying that it stops a running application rather than creating, setting up, or checking status. The scope (specific or all applications) is also explicit.

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 the tool should be used when the user wants to stop a running Zopio application, and it gives a clear condition for the parameter (if not specified, all applications are stopped). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct the agent to alternatives such as check-zopio-status or setup-zopio-app.

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