ct_stop

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses that the operation is async and returns a task UPID, and that dry_run allows previewing. It omits whether the stop is forced/immediate versus graceful, which matters for a destructive container operation.

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?

Front-loaded with the marker, purpose, return value, and inverse before the Args block. The Args block largely restates the schema and repeats dry_run (already covered in the lead), which is minor redundancy for a 4-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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?

Given the 4-parameter schema, no output schema, and available annotations, the description covers the operation, its async return, and each argument's meaning. The remaining gap is the forced-vs-graceful semantics of a stop, which an agent would want before running a destructive action.

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 0%, but the description documents all four parameters: vmid points to ct_list for discovery, node notes it may be omitted to auto-locate, target is a named config target, and dry_run is explained. Only 'target' remains somewhat vague as a config-defined label.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Stop an LXC container'), front-loads a [WRITE] marker, and explicitly names the opposing operation ('Inverse: ct_start'). An agent can distinguish this from vm_stop/ct_start without opening the schema.

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?

Points to ct_start as the inverse and explains the dry_run preview path, which tells the agent when a safe rehearsal is available. It does not, however, contrast hard-stop semantics against a graceful shutdown sibling or state preconditions such as the container needing to be running.

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