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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that shutdown is a clean ACPI operation, stop is a hard power-off, and the call returns an action that must be polled with get_action. This adds meaningful behavioral context for a mutation tool whose annotations already indicate it is not read-only.

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 compact sentence plus a scope note, with the action list and key semantic distinctions front-loaded. Every phrase contributes useful 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 two-parameter VM action tool with no output schema, the description covers the available actions, the important shutdown-vs-stop distinction, the async return behavior, and the required scope. It is complete enough for an agent 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?

Schema coverage is only 50%, but the description compensates well for the undocumented 'type' enum by explaining the practical difference between shutdown and stop. The 'vm' parameter is described in schema, and the description adds scope context without repeating it.

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 enumerates the specific operations (start, shutdown, reboot, stop) and clarifies the resource via the scope 'vms.action' and required 'vm' parameter. It distinguishes shutdown from stop semantically, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as destroy_vm or reinstall_vm.

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 gives useful operational guidance by distinguishing clean ACPI shutdown from hard power-off stop, and it points to get_action for polling the returned action. It does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives like destroy_vm, but the action semantics are clear.

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