Gracefully stop Parallels VM

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation nature is known. The description adds the behavioral detail that it never uses force-kill, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like losing unsaved guest OS data, nor does it mention if the operation is synchronous or asynchronous.

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-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Request an ACPI shutdown') and immediately clarifies a key behavioral distinction (no force-kill). No wasted words.

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 destructive operation with a single parameter, the description is minimal but adequate for a basic stop action. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., VM must be running) or explicitly state the result (VM powers off), but the output schema likely covers return values. The lack of side-effect detail is a moderate gap for a destructive 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?

The input schema has zero description coverage for the only parameter 'vm', and the description provides no explanation of what the parameter represents (e.g., VM name, UUID, or how to obtain it). The agent is left without any guidance on what value to supply.

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 action ('Request an ACPI shutdown') and the resource (a Parallels VM), and specifies the method (ACPI, not force-kill). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vm_suspend (suspend) and vm_delete (delete).

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 a graceful stop by stating 'never uses force-kill', but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance. It leaves it to the agent to infer that this is the graceful shutdown option among stop-like operations.

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