stop_vm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description omits that 'stop' implies a hard power-off that can be destructive, potentially causing data loss, and does not explain the 'timeout' parameter's role in forcing shutdown. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 very short and front-loaded with no unnecessary words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified, conveying only the bare action and not enough to support correct selection or invocation. It is concise but sacrifices informative value, making it minimally adequate.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify the difference from 'shutdown_vm', mention the force-shutdown behavior via timeout, or indicate what happens after the call (e.g., task status). Given the rich set of sibling lifecycle tools, this description is insufficient for an agent to choose confidently.

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 all three parameters (node, vmid, timeout) with clear descriptions, so the description does not need to repeat them. However, it also does not add any additional semantic context beyond the schema, such as the significance of the timeout or the importance of required fields. This meets the baseline for full schema 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 action ('Stop') and resource ('a VM'), so the basic purpose is evident. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'shutdown_vm', which typically performs a graceful shutdown rather than a hard stop. This lack of distinction prevents the agent from understanding the unique intent of this tool.

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 like 'shutdown_vm' or 'restart_vm'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., VM must be running) or any scenarios warranting a hard stop over a graceful shutdown. No exclusions or alternative conditions are described.

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