yaaif_mcp_deployment_stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful behavior details by explaining the two stop mechanisms ('compose stop or k8s scale-down via GitOps'). However, it omits important traits such as whether the operation is reversible, whether it is asynchronous, and what happens to the deployment definition after stopping.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Stop an MCP deployment'), and contains no filler or redundant wording. Every word adds useful context, including the two concrete mechanisms.

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 single-parameter mutation, the description conveys the core action and mechanism, but leaves open several important contextual points: prerequisites (deployment must exist), whether the operation is synchronous, expected return behavior, and what stop does not do (e.g., it does not delete the deployment). Given no output schema and no annotations, this is an adequate but not complete definition.

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%, but the single parameter `deployment_id` is semantically straightforward and is linked to the deployment to be stopped by the description. The description does not explain the format of the ID or how to obtain it, but the parameter name and the tool intent are enough to make its role clear.

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 and resource ('Stop an MCP deployment') and adds the implementation detail ('compose stop or k8s scale-down via GitOps'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete, redeploy, deploy, or status. An agent can tell what this tool does and how it differs from the lifecycle siblings.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus yaaif_mcp_deployment_delete, yaaif_mcp_deployment_redeploy, or yaaif_mcp_deployment_deploy. It does not mention that stop is typically for temporary halts, nor does it state any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives. The intended usage is only implied by the verb 'stop'.

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