vm_shutdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses the ACPI powerdown mechanism, the fallback-to-quit timeout behavior, the kill semantics of force=true, and the important side effect that registry metadata persists. It omits prerequisites such as whether the VM must be running and what happens if it is already stopped.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler; the action and its mechanism lead, and the state-persistence caveat follows. Every clause carries distinct operational 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the description covers mechanism, fallback, and post-shutdown state. Remaining gaps (error conditions, required VM state, permissions) are minor for a two-parameter lifecycle tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains the non-obvious 'force' parameter ('kills immediately') and its place in the fallback sequence, while 'name' is self-evident from context. One parameter's semantics are effectively undocumented but the ambiguous one is well covered.

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 and resource ('Shut the VM down') and disambiguates the action space by naming the inverse sibling ('vm_boot can start it again'). An agent can immediately distinguish this from vm_boot, vm_snapshot, or vm_restore without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the force=true note hints at when to escalate to an immediate kill, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., graceful shutdown before teardown vs. aborting a hung VM). It names vm_boot only as a recovery path, not as an alternative to weigh.

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