stop_vm

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

Annotation contradiction: destructiveHint=false conflicts with the description describing a forced stop, which is destructive (like pulling power). No other behavioral traits disclosed beyond the risk level.

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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. The essential information is front-loaded.

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?

Output schema exists so return values are not needed. However, the annotation contradiction reduces completeness, and no explanation of post-stop state or side effects is provided. Adequate for a simple tool but with a significant issue.

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 already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 a VM' which is a specific verb+resource, and distinguishes from siblings like shutdown_vm by using 'force-stop' and the analogy of pulling the power.

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?

Mentions the required environment variable PROXMOX_RISK_LEVEL=lifecycle, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., shutdown_vm for graceful stop). The analogy implies emergency use, but no direct guidance.

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