pve_stop_container

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'force,' hinting at abrupt termination, but lacks details on permissions required, whether it's reversible, side effects (e.g., data loss), or error conditions. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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?

Extremely concise with a single phrase ('Stop a container (force)'), front-loaded and zero waste. Every word earns its place by conveying core action and key behavioral trait.

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?

Incomplete for a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description lacks critical context: what 'force' entails operationally, success/failure indicators, safety warnings, or comparison to sibling tools. It's minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about important behavioral aspects.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (node, vmid, skiplock). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying forceful action, which doesn't clarify parameter usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema handles parameter 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 description clearly states the action ('Stop') and target ('a container'), with the qualifier '(force)' indicating forceful termination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pve_shutdown_container' (graceful shutdown) and 'pve_reboot_container' (restart). However, it doesn't specify the exact difference between 'stop' and 'shutdown' beyond 'force,' leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pve_shutdown_container' (graceful) or 'pve_reboot_container' (restart). The '(force)' hint implies urgency or unresponsiveness, but no clear when/when-not rules or prerequisites are stated.

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