pve_stop_vm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'force' which hints at non-graceful behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether this requires admin permissions, if it's destructive (risk of data loss), what happens to dependent services, or typical error conditions. The description is too sparse for a mutation tool with safety implications.

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 just three words plus parenthetical. Every element earns its place: 'Stop' (action), 'a virtual machine' (resource), '(force)' (key behavioral modifier. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'force' entails operationally, what permissions are required, what the typical response looks like, or error conditions. The agent lacks crucial context for safe and effective use.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers parameter purposes, though the description doesn't enhance understanding of how parameters interact with the 'force' behavior.

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 resource ('a virtual machine'), with the parenthetical '(force)' adding specificity about the forceful nature. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pve_shutdown_vm' (graceful shutdown) and 'pve_stop_container' (different resource type), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 like 'pve_shutdown_vm' (graceful) or 'pve_stop_container' (for containers). The description implies forceful stopping but doesn't specify scenarios where this is appropriate or warn about potential data loss or service interruption.

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