timeweb_stop_deploy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and safety. It only states the action 'stop a running deployment' without mentioning whether the operation is destructive, reversible, requires specific permissions, or what happens to the deployment record. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like tool.

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 with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise and easy to parse. It loses one point because it is so terse that it omits useful behavioral context, but for pure conciseness it is effective.

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 has a low-complexity schema but no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover behavioral context. It fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., deployment must be running), side effects, or post-conditions, making it incomplete for a mutation tool. The lack of any return value explanation also leaves the agent without expectations.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (app_id, deploy_id, format) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema is complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'stop' with the resource 'a running deployment', which clearly identifies the action and target. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like deploy_app and list_app_deploys by focusing on stopping an in-progress deployment, though it could be more explicit about the context (e.g., stopping a deployment within an app).

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 a deployment is running, but offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternative tools. It provides minimal context, relying on the tool name and sibling names to carry the usage intent.

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