proxmox_guest_shutdown

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety bar is partly covered; the description still adds real value by specifying the shutdown is graceful (ACPI-style, not a hard kill) and that the call returns an accepted task UPID rather than a final result. It does not mention that a guest ignoring the signal may not power off, which would be the remaining gap.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action, the scope constraint, and the return value in that order. Every clause carries 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the return is an accepted task UPID, which tells the agent the operation is asynchronous. It stops short of saying the agent should poll proxmox_task_status to confirm completion, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so all five parameters including the confirm flag and the type enum are already documented. The description only reinforces that the target must be explicit and confirmed, adding no format or value details beyond the schema — the baseline 3 for full coverage applies.

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 pair ('Gracefully shut down one ... Proxmox guest') with an explicit scope qualifier ('one explicitly targeted'). The verb itself separates it from proxmox_guest_reboot and proxmox_guest_start, but the description never names those siblings to close the loop.

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?

'after confirmation' and the required confirm flag imply the precondition for calling, but the description never says when to prefer this over a forced stop or over proxmox_guest_reboot. Usage is inferable from the verb rather than stated.

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