shutdown_vm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the shutdown is graceful and uses an ACPI signal, which is beyond a simple 'shutdown'. However, it does not mention timeouts, failure handling, or whether the VM may become unresponsive, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the action, resource, and method. No unnecessary words or redundancy are present.

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 simple shutdown tool with only two obvious parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It lacks details about edge cases like already-shutdown VMs or error handling, but these are less critical given the simplicity and the clarity of the action.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the node or vmid parameters. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, no explicit semantics are added, so the agent must infer their meaning from context.

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 verb 'shutdown', the resource 'QEMU virtual machine', and the method 'via ACPI signal'. The word 'gracefully' distinguishes this from sibling tools like stop_vm, which likely implies a force stop.

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 usage when a graceful shutdown is desired, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. No exclusionary language is present, and the contrast with stop_vm is only implicit via 'gracefully'.

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