stop_database

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, which tells the agent this is a repeatable, destructive write. The description adds the concrete scope requirement (databases:write), which is genuine value. However, it does not state whether data/connections survive the stop, whether stopping is reversible, or what the response contains — the most consequential behavioral facts for a destructive database 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, action stated first and the scope qualifier alongside it. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves no room for a usage clause that would have been cheap to add.

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, irreversible-sounding database mutation with no output schema and a partially undocumented schema, the description covers the action and the permission scope but omits effect scope (data retention, connection termination, reversibility) and the role of the undocumented `workspace_id`. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 50%: `id` is documented in the schema, but `workspace_id` is undocumented in both schema and description. The description says nothing whatsoever about parameters, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Turns the database off'), which is unambiguous about the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like start_database, reset_database, or delete_database, but the name/verb pairing makes the intent obvious.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this rather than reset_database, delete_database, or start_database, and no note that start_database can reverse it. The only usage context supplied is the required scope string.

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