shutdown_vm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the 'graceful' aspect, but doesn't mention that it may force shutdown after a timeout, fail if the VM is not running, or have other side effects. This is insufficient for a mutating operation.

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 with a clear verb-object structure and no redundant words. It's efficiently front-loaded, though it sacrifices substance for brevity.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and several sibling tools (stop_vm, restart_vm), this description is under-specified. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or how it differs from stop_vm. The agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior or when to invoke it.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about node, vmid, or timeout beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Shutdown') and resource ('VM'), and 'gracefully' hints at a distinguishing behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like stop_vm, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios (e.g., graceful shutdown when ACPI is supported) or exclude cases (e.g., when VM is hung). No alternatives are referenced.

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