shutdown_vm

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

Despite having no annotations, the description fully discloses the destructive nature by starting with 'DESTRUCTIVE:', explaining the graceful shutdown mechanism, and requiring a confirm boolean to execute while previewing otherwise. It covers the key behavioral aspects and side effects.

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 compact and well-structured, starting with a clear warning, followed by the action, mechanism, prerequisite, alternative, and arguments. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with no redundancy.

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 is complete given the tool's complexity. It covers purpose, prerequisites, alternative use, and parameter behavior. With no annotations and an output schema not requiring further return-value explanation, it fully equips an agent to use the tool safely.

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 input schema has no descriptions for its properties, but the description explicitly explains both parameters: vm_id as the VM identifier and confirm as a gate that returns a preview when false. This adds essential semantic 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 the tool's purpose: to gracefully shut down a running virtual machine by sending an ACPI shutdown signal. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool force_shutdown_vm by name and explains the difference in method and use case.

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 explicitly says to use force_shutdown_vm if the guest is unresponsive, providing a direct alternative. It also specifies the prerequisite that guest tools or ACPI support must be present, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool.

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