stop_vps

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent. The description adds the key behavioral nuance: it gives the guest OS a chance to shut down cleanly, and contrasts with the hard power-off. It does not disclose every side effect (e.g., behavior if already stopped) but covers the essential behavioral difference.

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, no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative is stated in a second concise sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 operation with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the key alternative. It does not discuss edge cases (e.g., already stopped VPS) or asynchronous behavior, but these are not critical for a basic stop action. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the vps_id parameter at all. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description fails to add any additional meaning, leaving the parameter entirely undocumented. Per the rules, the description must compensate for low schema coverage, and it does not.

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 verb (stop), the resource (VPS), and the method (graceful ACPI shutdown). It explicitly contrasts with poweroff_vps, making the distinction unambiguous. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from its sibling.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (for graceful shutdown) and when to use the alternative (poweroff_vps for hard power-off). This is a direct usage guideline with a named alternative, leaving no ambiguity.

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