shutdown_vm

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the important trait that this is a graceful, non-forcing operation via ACPI. It does not say what happens if the guest ignores the request, whether a timeout produces an error or a returned state, or what permissions are needed.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the key behavioral constraint (graceful, never forced) is front-loaded where an agent will see it first.

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?

For a two-parameter action with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it does and how it differs from a forced power-off. The remaining gap is post-call behavior on timeout, which the agent would need to infer.

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 coverage is 100%, so both vm and waitMs are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no extra meaning about waitMs, e.g. whether 0 means fire-and-forget or whether a timeout causes a failure.

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?

States a specific verb (shut down) and resource (VM) and adds the mechanism, ACPI power button, which makes it clearly distinct from a hard power-off. It stops short of naming the sibling poweroff_vm, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 clause 'Never forces power-off' gives a usable selection rule: pick this for an OS-cooperative shutdown and something else when a forced kill is required. It never names poweroff_vm or reset_vm as the alternative, and gives no prerequisites such as guest tools or ACPI support being required.

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