stop_guest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the risk of data loss and that it's a hard stop, but does not mention other behaviors like whether it is synchronous or asynchronous, or what happens to the guest state.

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 three short sentences covering purpose, usage guidance, and required parameters. It is concise but the last sentence is redundant with the schema and could be removed.

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 simple stop tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and use case. However, it lacks details on return behavior (e.g., success indication) and does not address potential error scenarios like stopping an already stopped guest.

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 should add meaning. It merely lists 'Needs node, vmid, type' without explaining what each parameter represents or the implications of the 'type' enum, adding no value beyond the schema.

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 tool performs a hard stop ('pulls virtual power cord') and distinguishes it from the sibling shutdown_guest by noting it may lose unsaved data and is for unresponsive guests.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use shutdown_guest unless the guest is unresponsive, providing clear guidance on when to choose this tool over the alternative.

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