stop_app

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the risk profile is covered structurally. The description adds the required auth scope 'apps:write', which is genuinely useful context. However, it says nothing about what state the app is left in, whether in-flight requests or deploys are affected, or whether the stop is graceful.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The scope annotation is tucked into parentheses rather than cluttering the primary statement.

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 destructive lifecycle mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action and the required permission but omits outcome state and side effects. Annotations carry most of the safety burden, making it minimally adequate rather than complete.

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%, with both 'id' and 'workspace_id' documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond 'the application', giving no disambiguation between the required app id and the optional workspace scope.

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 ('Turns the application off'), so an agent knows exactly what it does. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like start_app, restart_app, or delete_app, but 'application' does separate it from stop_database.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus restart_app, delete_app, or unpublish_app, and no mention of prerequisites or preconditions. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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