proxmox_guest_stop

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context: it is forceful, requires elevated permissions, and affects VMs/containers. But it omits potential consequences like data loss or whether the operation is synchronous.

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 sentence front-loaded with the core action, including essential context (type and permissions). No extraneous 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 tool with no output schema and three parameters, the description covers the primary action and requirement. However, it lacks details on operation effects, error conditions, or return values, which would be helpful for a complete understanding.

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 input schema already describes node and vmid concisely; the description adds the purpose of the 'type' parameter. With 67% schema coverage, the description does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, meeting baseline.

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 clearly states the tool forcefully stops a VM or LXC container, specifying the action (forcefully stop), target types (vm/lxc), and a prerequisite (elevated permissions). This distinguishes it from graceful shutdown tools among siblings.

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?

The description hints at usage by noting 'forcefully' and 'requires elevated permissions', suggesting it is for emergency stops or when graceful methods fail. However, it could explicitly mention when to use instead of proxmox_guest_shutdown or proxmox_guest_pause.

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