shutdown_container

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'gracefully,' which hints at a graceful ACPI shutdown, but does not explain timeout behavior, what happens on failure, whether it returns a status, or if any permissions are required. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, containing no filler words. Every word ('Shutdown', 'container', 'gracefully') adds meaningful information. It is appropriately sized for a simple verb action, though it could arguably be expanded with essential caveats.

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 is incomplete for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It fails to explain the timeout mechanism, behavior on unresponsive containers, or how it fits with sibling container lifecycle tools (start_container, stop_container, restart_container). Given the action's mutating nature, this is a significant gap.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (node, vmid, timeout), meeting the baseline for high schema_description_coverage. The description adds little beyond implying that 'timeout' plays a role in the graceful shutdown, but it does not explain semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific action (shutdown) and resource (container), with 'gracefully' indicating a particular shutdown mode. This distinguishes it from force-stop variants like stop_container, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stop_container, shutdown_vm, or restart_container. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the when-to-use context entirely implicit.

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