vm_shutdown

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

Annotations already declare a destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the shutdown is graceful/ACPI rather than a hard power-off, and dry_run provides a no-op preview. It doesn't mention timeout behavior or what happens to unsaved data, but for a mutated state this is solid added value.

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 write marker, operation, and sibling contrast in the first line; the Args block is terse. Minor redundancy in restating parameter names, but every line earns its place.

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 destructive four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers write intent, graceful-vs-hard semantics, preview capability, and all arguments. It leaves only timeout/guest-dependency edge cases unstated.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and does: vmid is the numeric Proxmox id, dry_run previews, target comes from config, and node can be omitted to auto-locate the VM. That last point is behavioral meaning the schema does not convey.

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+resource (graceful ACPI shutdown of a VM) and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling vm_stop by naming the hard alternative and the inverse vm_start. An agent can route between vm_shutdown, vm_stop, and vm_start without opening any 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?

Explicitly contrasts with the hard vm_stop and points to vm_start as the inverse, which gives a clear condition for selection. It also recommends dry_run=True for preview. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g., only for ACPI-capable guests), so it's clear but not fully exhaustive.

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