Force Stop Guest

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive write operation. The description adds the 'forcefully' qualifier and the elevated permissions requirement, which are useful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens to the guest (e.g., data loss risk, no graceful OS shutdown) beyond what 'forcefully' implies. With annotations covering the destructive nature, a 3 is appropriate.

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 that front-loads the action and resource type, then adds the permissions note. No wasted words. It could be slightly more structured with explicit alternative routing, but it's appropriately concise.

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 action with three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the permission requirement. However, it doesn't mention what the response looks like, whether the operation is synchronous, or any side effects beyond 'forcefully stop'. The annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness, so the description is adequate but not rich.

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 67%: node and vmid have descriptions, but type only has an enum without a description. The description adds that type can be 'vm' or 'lxc' and that both are supported, which is already in the enum. It doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for node and vmid. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the work.

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 action ('Forcefully stop') and the resource types (VM or LXC container), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxmox_guest_shutdown (graceful stop) and proxmox_guest_delete. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternatives, but the verb 'forcefully stop' is specific enough to differentiate it from the many guest management tools.

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 implies when to use it: when a forceful stop is needed, as opposed to a graceful shutdown. However, it doesn't explicitly state 'use proxmox_guest_shutdown for graceful shutdown' or mention any exclusions. The parenthetical about elevated permissions gives some context but no explicit alternative routing.

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