stop_app

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

Annotations already provide safety traits (idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only), so the description only needs to add context beyond those. The added 'scope: apps:write' conveys an authorization requirement, which is useful. It does not describe the effect on the app's state beyond the obvious, but it does not contradict the annotations either.

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 a single clear sentence plus a parenthetical scope note, which is concise and front-loaded. Every element earns its place and there is no filler. It could be more detailed without becoming bloated, but as written it is efficient.

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?

The tool is simple, has a clear action and scope, and the annotations cover idempotency, destructiveness, and read-only behavior. Missing context includes what 'off' implies (e.g., ceases running, does not delete data) and any relation to start/restart, but the current description is adequate for a simple stop operation with no output schema.

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 'id' described as 'Application ID' and 'workspace_id' as 'ID of the workspace that owns the resource'. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so it sits at the baseline of 3. The description's 'Turns the application off' references the id but gives no format or behavioral detail beyond the schema names.

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-resource pair ('Turns the application off'), clearly identifying the operation on an app. It is clear on its own and does not need sibling differentiation because the name and behavior are unambiguous. It lacks an explicit statement of what 'off' means in system terms (e.g., stops a running app), which prevents full clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use stop_app versus related siblings like start_app or restart_app. The only hint is the appended scope ('apps:write'), which indicates permission but not usage conditions. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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