vm_stop

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true but the description adds the concrete consequence an agent needs: the guest filesystem may be left dirty, this is an immediate power-off, actions are audited to ~/.proxmox-aiops/audit.db, and dry_run=True previews. That is exactly the behavioral detail annotations cannot carry.

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 one-line summary is front-loaded with the [WRITE] marker, version scope, and return value, followed by a compact risk/audit note and a short Args block. No sentence is filler, and the Args block is justified by the 0% schema coverage.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition covers the critical ground: side effects, return value (task UPID), audit behavior, dry-run safety, and every parameter. An agent has everything required to invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does document all four parameters including defaults ('dry_run: If True, preview without stopping', 'node: ... omit to auto-locate the VM'). The entries are terse and 'target: Proxmox target name from config' is somewhat opaque, but coverage is complete.

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 ('Hard-stop (power off) a VM'), tags it as [WRITE], and explicitly separates it from the graceful path by noting it is 'not a graceful guest shutdown'. Naming vm_start as the inverse, alongside vm_shutdown in the sibling list, lets an agent place it precisely.

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 clear usage context: immediate power-off versus graceful shutdown, and points to the inverse operation vm_start. It stops short of explicitly naming vm_shutdown as the alternative to prefer when a clean guest shutdown is wanted, so the routing decision is implied rather than spelled out.

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