stop_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 effectively describes the tool's behavior: it's a destructive operation ('Force-stop') with a risk of data loss, includes a confirmation mechanism, and outlines a two-step process (first call without confirm shows a warning). This adds significant value beyond the basic schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and warning, followed by a structured 'Args' section that efficiently details parameters. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-organized.

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 (destructive operation with confirmation), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, risks, and parameter semantics well, but could benefit from more explicit guidance on when to use versus siblings like 'shutdown_guest' for full contextual coverage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains both parameters: 'vmid' as 'The numeric ID of the VM or container to stop' and 'confirm' with detailed semantics about its role in execution and the warning mechanism. This adds crucial meaning not present in 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 the action ('Force-stop') and target ('a running VM or container'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'shutdown_guest' or 'reboot_guest' by emphasizing forceful termination. It specifies the resource type and the potential consequence of data loss, making the purpose explicit and distinct.

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 provides clear context for usage with the warning about data loss and the two-step confirmation process, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'shutdown_guest' or 'reboot_guest'. It implies usage in forceful scenarios but lacks direct comparison or exclusion criteria.

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