pve_task_stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool is a mutation (HIGH), explains the dry-run default, the need for explicit confirmation, the risk of inconsistency, that it returns null, and that it's synchronous. This is comprehensive.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with 'MUTATION (HIGH)' and the core purpose. It efficiently covers key aspects without unnecessary verbiage. Minor improvement could be made by structuring the risk info more explicitly, but it's well-organized.

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 tool's simplicity (stop a task), the description is complete: it explains what it does, how to use it (dry-run then confirm), the risks, the return value (null), and the synchronous nature. An output schema exists but is not needed as the description already specifies the return. No gaps remain.

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 4 parameters with only 25% description coverage (only proximo_target has a description). The tool description adds meaning for the 'confirm' parameter (required to execute) but does not explain 'node' or 'proximo_target'. While the schema provides defaults and titles, the description could better compensate 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 tool stops/cancels a running task, specifying the action ('stop (cancel)') and the resource ('a running task'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pve_task_list, pve_task_status, and pve_task_wait by focusing exclusively on cancellation.

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 usage guidance: dry-run by default, confirm=True to execute, and warns of risks ('backup/restore/migration/clone mid-flight can leave the target inconsistent, with NO undo'). It implicitly tells when to use (when a task must be aborted) and when not (risky operations). It lacks explicit mention of alternatives but is adequate for decision-making.

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