pve_shutdown_guest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions a 'clean shutdown', which implies graceful behavior, but it does not explain that this is a state-changing operation, whether confirmation is required for safety, whether it is reversible, or what consequences may occur.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler, which is efficient. It loses a point because the awkward 'permitido' phrasing and lack of any structured parameter hints reduce clarity despite the brevity.

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 four required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no information about parameter formats, required confirm values, return behavior, or safety implications, so the agent cannot reliably invoke the tool.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the four required parameters: node, vmid, guest_type, or confirm. The phrase 'VM o LXC' hints at guest_type, but no information is given about valid values, especially for the required confirm parameter, leaving the agent unable to construct a correct call.

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 states a specific action, 'Solicita apagado limpio' (request clean shutdown), applied to a VM or LXC, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pve_start_guest and pve_reboot_guest. However, the word 'permitido' is awkward and likely a mistranslation of 'guest', slightly muddying the sentence.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pve_reboot_guest or pve_start_guest. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling list, with no explicit context or exclusions provided.

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