qemu_vm_force_stop

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

The destructiveHint annotation already marks this as destructive, and the description adds an 'immediately' behavioral aspect. However, it does not disclose important consequences such as potential data loss or bypassed guest cleanup, which would add meaningful context beyond the annotation.

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 that front-loads the action and the condition. There is no redundant content or repetition of schema information.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides enough context: what happens, when to use it, and what resource is affected. A short warning about data-loss risk would improve it, but nothing essential for invoking the tool is missing.

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 0% description coverage for vm_id, and the tool description does not mention or explain the parameter. The parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, so the gap is not severe, but the description contributes no semantic value 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 states a specific action and resource: 'Immediately stop a managed QEMU VM.' The qualifier 'when graceful shutdown is not possible' clearly distinguishes it from related tools like qemu_vm_shutdown. This goes beyond a simple restatement of the tool name.

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 an explicit condition for use: when graceful shutdown is not possible. This implies the graceful alternative should be considered first, though it does not explicitly name qemu_vm_shutdown as the preferred fallback.

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