proxmox_guest_shutdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the shutdown is graceful, requires explicit confirmation, targets exactly one guest, and returns an accepted task UPID. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it does not state irreversibility or permission requirements explicitly.

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, well-front-loaded sentence that packs the core action, scope, precondition, method, and return value with no filler. Every element serves a purpose, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the key operational details: graceful behavior, one explicit target, confirmation requirement, and the returned UPID. Since there is no output schema, stating the return value is valuable. It could be slightly more complete by naming alternatives or noting irreversibility, but for a simple shutdown tool with fully documented required parameters, it is largely sufficient.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema; it merely restates the confirmation behavior already documented for the confirm parameter. The schema fully describes node, type, vmid, confirm, and endpoint, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 ('Gracefully shut down'), a clear resource ('Proxmox guest'), and a scope ('one explicitly targeted'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxmox_guest_start and proxmox_guest_reboot. It also communicates the confirmation requirement and the return value, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Gracefully shut down one explicitly targeted Proxmox guest after confirmation' gives clear context for when to use this tool and implies the core alternative situation (reboot/start) without explicitly naming a sibling. It does not mention exclusions, such as forced shutdown, but the scope and confirmation condition provide adequate directional guidance.

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