shutdown_vm

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the shutdown method (ACPI), the existence of a timeout parameter (from schema), and the required risk level. Annotations already indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false), which is consistent.

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 sentence plus a requirement, with no unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the core action and a key precondition.

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 has 3 parameters, an output schema, and sibling tools, the description covers the essential purpose and a prerequisite. It could be more complete by mentioning that the VM should be running or that the operation may be asynchronous, but it is sufficient for most use cases.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters (node, vmid, timeout). The description does not add significant meaning beyond what is in the schema (e.g., it mentions 'via ACPI' but that does not elaborate on parameters). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Gracefully shutdown a VM via ACPI.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like stop_vm by implying a graceful, ACPI-based shutdown.

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 mentions a prerequisite (PROXMOX_RISK_LEVEL=lifecycle) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., stop_vm for forced shutdown). The context is implied but lacks clear exclusions or when-not scenarios.

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