pve_node_stopall

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a mutation with high risk, requires 'confirm=True' to execute, explains reversibility, and even notes that the endpoint and vms param format are not live-verified. It mentions the return type (task UPID). It does not specify permissions or what happens when confirm=False, but overall is transparent.

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 relatively concise and front-loaded with purpose and risk warnings. Each sentence adds value, though there is a bit of extra information (endpoint, smoke-confirm) that could be integrated. Still, it is efficient.

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 complexity (mutation, high risk, 4 params), the description covers purpose, risk, reversal, confirm requirement, and endpoint. It lacks detailed parameter explanations for 'node' and full output format (though output schema exists). Overall, it is fairly complete for the tool's nature.

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 only 25% (only 'proximo_target' described in schema). The description adds value for 'vms' (filtering scope) and 'confirm' (required to execute), but does not explain the 'node' parameter. This partially compensates for the low coverage.

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 verb ('stop') and resource ('running guests on a PVE node'), and explicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'pve_node_startall' and 'pve_guest_power' by emphasizing the 'ALL' scope and filtering capability.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use (stopping all or filtered guests), warnings about high risk and fleet outage, and advises using the 'vms' filter to limit scope. It mentions reversibility via 'pve_node_startall' and the need for 'confirm=True'. However, it does not directly compare to similar tools like 'pve_guest_power' for single guests.

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