pve_task_stop

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is a high-risk mutation, dry-run by default, synchronous cancellation, returns null, and the task may run briefly after the signal. It also warns about the risk of inconsistency and no undo.

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 concise and well-structured, with each sentence adding important information. It front-loads the key purpose and risk level, then elaborates on behavior and parameter usage without unnecessary verbosity.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers behavior, input parameters, and return value ('returns null, not a UPID'). It could be slightly more thorough on error handling, but overall it provides sufficient context for correct usage.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds context beyond the schema, such as explaining that 'confirm=False (default) returns a dry-run PLAN only' and where to find UPIDs. It also mentions the multi-target configuration for proximo_target, which adds semantic value.

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 action ('stop (cancel) a running task') and distinguishes it from sibling task tools by mentioning how to find UPIDs via pve_tasks_list. It specifies the scope and is 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?

The description explicitly explains when to use the tool (to cancel a task) and warns against misuse, e.g., 'stopping a backup/restore/migration/clone mid-flight can leave the target inconsistent'. It also clarifies the dry-run default and the need for confirm=True to execute, providing comprehensive usage guidance.

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