stop_container

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds the key behavioral consequence of downtime and the requirement that confirm=True is necessary to execute. This gives the agent helpful context about impact and safety without contradicting the annotation.

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-loaded with the main action, and includes essential caveats without any filler. Every word contributes value.

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 destructive action with destructiveHint annotated and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, consequence, and required confirmation. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly, though it could have briefly mentioned the container state after stop.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'confirm' by clarifying that it must be true, which is not evident from the boolean type alone. The 'name' parameter is self-explanatory as the container identifier, so the brief description is sufficient for this simple tool.

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 ('Stop a running container') with a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical '(downtime until restarted)' reinforces the scope. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like 'start_container' and 'restart_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?

The description implies usage when you intentionally want a container stopped, noting the downtime consequence, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., 'use restart_container for a quick restart'). The confirmation requirement is a useful operational guideline.

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