stop_container

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only but not explicitly destructive. The description only adds the risk level requirement, but does not disclose behavioral details such as what happens to running processes, whether it kills forcefully, or if there are side effects. For a mutation tool, more context is needed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

The description covers the core action and a key prerequisite. While missing output details and error conditions, it is reasonably complete for a straightforward mutating operation. Sibling tools are available for contrast, but the description could briefly mention when to prefer this over 'shutdown_container'.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage (node and vmid are well-described). The description adds no additional parameter details, so the baseline score of 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 'Force-stop an LXC container', using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'shutdown_container' (graceful stop) and 'stop_vm' (different resource), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the required risk level ('PROXMOX_RISK_LEVEL=lifecycle'), which is a usage prerequisite. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'shutdown_container' for graceful stops), nor does it note when not to use it.

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