Shutdown VM (graceful)

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

Annotations show destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. Description adds that the guest OS must respond and recommends qemu-guest-agent, providing context beyond annotations. However, it does not detail consequences of failure or timeout behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action 'ACPI shutdown'. No unnecessary words, and each sentence adds value directly.

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?

With 4 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks explanation of the graceful nature, behavior when guest does not respond, and does not reference sibling tools for forceful alternatives.

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 50% (timeout and forceStop have descriptions; node and vmid do not). The description does not add any parameter details beyond the schema, providing no additional semantic help for the undocumented parameters.

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 'ACPI shutdown' and the title indicates graceful shutdown, specifying the action and target (VM). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like stop_vm or reboot_vm.

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 implies the need for guest OS cooperation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like stop_vm for forceful shutdown. No direct guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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