vm_power_off

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: preview mode changes nothing, graceful shutdown waits up to 120s and may return 'still_running', an already-off VM returns 'noop', and certain states are refused. This goes well beyond the annotation fields and tells the agent exactly what the tool will and will not do.

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 long but every section earns its place: mode explanation, confirmation contract, refusal conditions, sibling routing, and return values. It is front-loaded with the core action and uses short paragraphs to keep the information scannable.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description enumerates possible action values (preview, noop, powered_off, still_running) and describes blast_radius contents. It covers safety, sequencing, failure modes, and related tools, leaving no critical gap for an agent to invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the interaction between force, confirm, and execution behavior, and by clarifying that force=True should be previewed when graceful shutdown is refused. This is more than the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Power off a VM', then immediately distinguishes graceful vs hard power-off. It also names sibling tools (vm_power_on, vm_delete) to clarify boundaries, so an agent can tell it apart from related operations.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: preview with confirm=False, do not set confirm=True on the user's earlier request, use vm_power_on to start a VM, and vm_delete requires the VM off first. It also lists refusal cases, such as graceful shutdown when VMware Tools is not running or the VM is suspended.

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