qemu_vm_force_stop

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

Annotations already flag destructive/read-only status, but the description adds a valuable side effect: the VM remains locked by this session and requires calling vm_unlock. This goes beyond the structured metadata, though details like potential data loss are left implicit under the destructive hint.

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 sentences, direct and front-loaded with the action, with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and consequences.

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 covers the action, condition, and lock side effect, and the sparse schema plus annotations make this mostly sufficient. It doesn't address return values, but for a force-stop action that's acceptable and doesn't hinder selection or invocation.

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 provides no description for vm_id (0% coverage), and the description doesn't mention or explain the parameter, leaving the agent to infer that vm_id identifies the target VM. The pattern constraint is in the schema but lacks semantic context.

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 forces a QEMU VM to stop immediately and specifies the context where graceful shutdown isn't possible, distinguishing it from shutdown/restart tools. The verb 'stop' + resource 'VM' + condition is specific and unambiguous.

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?

It provides a clear condition ('when graceful shutdown is not possible') and a follow-up action ('call vm_unlock when finished'), which guides usage. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like qemu_vm_shutdown, so the when-not-to-use guidance is implied rather than stated.

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