Stop and archive Box

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, but the description adds important behavioral context: it snapshots the disk and warns that force=true may irreversibly lose changes since the last successful snapshot. This goes beyond the generic annotation, though it does not address authorization or the post-stop state.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core function, the second provides a critical safety caveat. No filler or redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 two parameters, the description covers the purpose, snapshot behavior, and force risk adequately. It lacks a brief note on prerequisites (e.g., box must be running) or an explicit contrast with box_resume, but the annotations and schema provide reasonable context. Overall it is sufficient without being exhaustive.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for the force parameter (irreversibility, conditional use), which is beyond the schema's boolean default. However, the required box_id parameter is not described, though its name and pattern are self-explanatory. With low or partial schema coverage, the description only partially compensates for missing parameter explanations.

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 'Stop a Box and snapshot its disk', providing a specific verb (stop) and resource (Box) with an additional outcome (snapshot). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like box_resume or box_list, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit guidance on when force=true is appropriate ('only follow a refused normal stop'), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as box_resume or box_fork, leaving the primary usage context implied rather than fully spelled out.

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