shutdown_guest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'gracefully shut down' and the mechanisms, which implies a non-destructive operation, but does not address critical aspects like required permissions, potential side effects, error conditions, or what 'graceful' entails in practice. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter explanation. Both sentences are necessary and front-loaded, with zero redundant information. The formatting with 'Args:' enhances readability without adding bulk.

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 operation with no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which may cover return values), the description is partially complete. It explains the purpose and parameter but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and usage context relative to siblings. The output schema might mitigate some gaps, but the description alone is inadequate for safe operation.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides the parameter 'vmid' with a clear explanation ('The numeric ID of the VM or container to shut down'), adding essential meaning beyond the schema's basic type definition. However, it does not cover potential constraints or examples, leaving some gaps in parameter understanding.

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 specific action ('gracefully shut down') and target resource ('a VM or container'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'stop_guest' (which may imply forceful termination) and 'reboot_guest'. It also specifies the mechanism ('via ACPI signal (VMs) or init (containers)'), providing precise differentiation.

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 implies usage for graceful shutdowns rather than forceful stops, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stop_guest' or 'reboot_guest'. It provides some context through the mechanism details, but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios with siblings.

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