stop_container

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explicitly labels the operation 'DESTRUCTIVE' and states that confirmation is required, which are critical behavioral traits for a forceful stop. This goes beyond the schema to warn the user about the irreversible impact. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., data loss potential) or reversibility (e.g., that the container can be started again).

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 two short sentences, immediately front-loaded with the action and resource. The destructive warning and confirm requirement are succinctly encapsulated. There is no padding or redundancy; every word adds value.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose, destructive nature, and the critical confirmation parameter. It lacks details like behavior when confirm is false or for already-stopped containers, but these are peripheral for selection and basic invocation. The description sufficiently differentiates from sibling tools to guide correct usage.

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 description adds meaning only for the 'confirm' parameter by noting it must be true, which is essential for invocation. 'node' and 'vmid' are self-explanatory from their names and context, but with 0% schema description coverage, the description could have explicitly clarified these fields. Still, it provides some parameter guidance, raising it above a bare schema.

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 tool's function: 'Forcefully stop an LXC container.' The verb 'stop' with the qualifier 'forcefully' specifies both the action and the manner, distinguishing it from graceful shutdown tools like shutdown_container. It also explicitly targets LXC containers, separating it from stop_vm and other VM tools.

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 through the word 'Forcefully' and the 'DESTRUCTIVE' warning, suggesting it is for situations where a normal shutdown is insufficient. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (such as shutdown_container) or provide clear 'when to use vs. when not to use' guidance. The note 'Requires confirm=True' gives a prerequisite but not a decision rule.

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