stop_container

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: write guard, dry-run default, error behavior when the target doesn't match, and the caveat that after.status is 'stopping' rather than a guaranteed final state. This is exactly the non-obvious context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the action and then layers the guard, the confirm flow, and the error semantics in short paragraphs. Every sentence adds operational value; only mild verbosity around the after.status caveat.

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 restated, and the description fills the remaining gaps: authorization guard, dry-run semantics, failure mode, and status-resolution caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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: it explains that `container` matches a `name` or `tag` and is never auto-created, and that `confirm` defaults to a non-mutating preview. `device_name` is left unexplained, but its meaning is self-evident from the name and the sibling set.

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 and resource ('Stop a container by `name` or `tag`') and names the API endpoint it maps to. An agent can distinguish it immediately from the sibling start_container.

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?

Explicitly describes the two-phase call pattern (confirm=False for preview, confirm=True to apply) and the precondition that the server must run with MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE=true. It also names the follow-up tool (`containers`) to check settled status.

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