Stop Proxmox stats collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false; the description adds useful mechanism detail ('unregisters a viewer session') and scoping ('for a host's Proxmox node stats polling'). It does not, however, disclose consequences or error behavior, such as whether stopping a non-existent session fails, which would be consistent with idempotentHint=false, so it only partially carries the behavioral burden.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded before the mechanism. Every word contributes to purpose or mechanism.

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?

Despite the low parameter count, the description lacks the meaning of the required 'id', does not explain the role of the optional 'viewerSessionId', and gives no sense of the return value or success/failure behavior. With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, an agent cannot confidently invoke the tool from the description alone.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must map the two properties to their roles. It refers to 'a host' and 'a viewer session' but never explicitly says 'id' is the host id or 'viewerSessionId' is the session to unregister, leaving the required 'id' ambiguous. Parameter names are suggestive, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 first sentence names the exact action and resource ('Stop Proxmox stats collection'), and the second adds the mechanism ('Unregisters a viewer session for a host's Proxmox node stats polling'), making it clearly distinct from the sibling start/get_cached/get_historical Proxmox stats tools. The title and name reinforce the same verb-resource pairing.

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 by stating what the tool does, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over its sibling 'start_proxmox_stats_collection' or the get_cached/get_historical stats tools, nor any exclusions or preconditions. It is minimally serviceable but relies on the agent to infer context from the name and sibling list.

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