stop_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the two-stage shutdown behavior, the escalation to process-tree termination, and the boundary that only bridge-launched processes are affected. This is exactly the kind of hidden destructive behavior an agent needs to know before invoking.

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?

Three compact sentences, with the core action and escalation front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence earns its place; nothing restates the tool name or repeats schema content.

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 shutdown tool with two optional parameters, clear destructive behavior, explicit scope boundaries, and a named sibling alternative, everything needed to select and invoke it correctly is present. The absence of an output schema is not a practical gap since the agent does not need return-value details to call it correctly.

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?

Both parameters are already fully described in the input schema, including port resolution order and graceMs purpose. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but with 100% schema coverage 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 states a specific verb ('Shut down') and resource ('an instance this bridge launched'), and explicitly contrasts it with call_tool's 'close' command. An agent can immediately tell this tool is for shutdown of bridge-launched instances only.

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?

It explicitly scopes the tool to processes this bridge started and gives the exact alternative for games not launched by the bridge: use call_tool { name: 'close' }. This gives the agent both a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use rule.

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