suspend_vm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: the VM is suspended to memory and the state is saved for later resumption via resume_vm. This provides meaningful context beyond the name, but it omits details about prerequisites (e.g., VM must be running), failure modes, or any side effects, making only partial transparency.

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 and an Args block, all front-loaded with the core action. It is efficient and free of fluff; the Args block is arguably redundant but does not detract from clarity. Every element earns its place.

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 low complexity (single parameter) and the existence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the essential operation and lifecycle. It lacks details on error conditions or prerequisites, but for a simple suspend operation, the provided information is largely sufficient, though not exhaustive.

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 has no description coverage (0%), and the description only adds 'The VM identifier' for vm_id, which is largely redundant with the parameter name. It does not clarify the identifier format, how to obtain it, or any acceptable values, thus failing to compensate for the schema's lack of information.

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 'Suspend a running virtual machine to memory,' which specifies the verb, resource, and mechanism. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like start_vm, shutdown_vm, and resume_vm by explicitly noting the state is saved and resumable, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 gives clear context: use this for a running VM to save its state. It also mentions 'can be resumed later with resume_vm,' pointing to a related tool for the reverse operation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with shutdown_vm or reset_vm, so it lacks explicit exclusions that would merit a 5.

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