stop_vm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not disclose what stopping entails: whether it is graceful, whether data is lost, what happens to the VM state, or how the 'force' parameter changes behavior. This is a significant gap 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is optimally concise for stating the core action, though brevity here comes at the cost of other dimensions.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It omits any mention of side effects, the difference between a graceful stop and a forced kill, or how the 'force' parameter affects behavior. An agent lacks critical context to invoke it safely.

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 both parameters ('vm' and 'force') clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation when the schema is thorough.

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 states a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('virtual machine'), making the core action unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like start_vm and suspend_vm by verb alone, but does not explicitly differentiate when to choose stop over suspend or reset, which would warrant a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as suspend_vm or reset_vm, nor any prerequisites or context. The description simply states the action with no usage conditions or exclusions.

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