Lxc Control Power

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly communicates that the tool changes power state, which is the core mutating behavior, but it does not mention side effects like downtime, graceful vs. forced shutdown, or permission requirements.

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 tight sentence that leads with the operation and immediately lists all allowed actions. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy.

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 tool is relatively simple and the description covers the core action choices, but contextual completeness is limited by missing guidance on vmid semantics, behavioral consequences, and usage versus sibling tools. It is minimally viable but not rich.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully enumerates the valid values for the action parameter, but it does not explain the vmid parameter beyond its name and integer type.

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 identifies the tool as managing LXC power lifecycle and enumerates the four supported actions: start, stop, shutdown, reboot. This is specific enough to distinguish it from read-only siblings like lxc_list and lxc_get_info, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 action list implies the tool should be used when an agent needs to start, stop, shut down, or reboot an LXC container. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it differs from related tools like lxc_service_status.

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