pve_stop_node_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action is to 'stop' a task, implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is destructive (likely yes, as it stops something), permission requirements, side effects, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, earning full marks for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation to stop a task), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'task' is, the consequences of stopping it, or what the return value might be. This leaves critical gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full context and behavior.

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 no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. However, schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'node' (Node name) and 'upid' (Task UPID). This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters without needing extra detail from the description.

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 'Stop a running task' clearly states the action (stop) and target (task), but it's vague about what constitutes a 'task' in this context. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like pve_stop_container or pve_stop_vm, which also stop things. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the resource type.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that the task must be running), what happens after stopping, or how it differs from other stop-related tools like pve_stop_container. Without this context, the agent has to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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