stop_application

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. 'Stop an application' gives no information about side effects, reversibility, dependencies, or whether the operation is safe or destructive. The agent is left blind to the consequences of calling this 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 short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The sentence is a tautology and contains no information beyond the tool name, so it does not earn its place as a useful description.

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 state-changing operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least note reversibility, effect on the application, and relationship to start/restart. The one-parameter schema is well covered, but the description leaves significant gaps in operational context.

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 schema documents the only parameter, id, as 'Application ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level information, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the structured schema handles the input documentation.

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 'Stop an application' is essentially a verbatim restatement of the tool name, adding no new information. It conveys the basic action but does not help distinguish this tool from siblings beyond what the name already implies. This falls into the tautology category.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of start_application, restart_application, or stop_service. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned. An agent must infer the appropriate usage from sibling tool names alone.

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