stop_service

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'gracefully shut[s] down the service container', which implies a controlled stop rather than immediate termination. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether the stop is reversible, error conditions, or what happens to dependent resources.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first states the core purpose, the second adds important behavioral context about graceful shutdown. No wasted words or unnecessary information.

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 operation (stopping a service) with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and behavioral context but lacks important details. It doesn't explain what 'gracefully' means operationally, what the response looks like, or potential side effects. Given the complexity of stopping a running service, more completeness would be expected.

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 the single parameter 'uuid' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('stop') and resource ('a running service'), specifying it's a graceful shutdown of the service container. It distinguishes from siblings like 'restart_service' and 'stop_application' by focusing specifically on stopping services.

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 service needs to be stopped gracefully, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like 'restart_service' or 'stop_application'. It mentions getting the UUID from 'list_services', which provides some context but not explicit guidance on tool selection.

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