pve_stop_vm

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the stop is hard and that confirmation is required, but it does not warn about unsaved data loss, bypassing graceful shutdown, or behavior if the VM is already stopped. Adequate but thin for a destructive action.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The action verb is front-loaded, and the single critical usage requirement is stated immediately afterward. 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 an unannotated destructive operation, the description is too sparse. It omits how to specify a container via vm_type, provides no safety caveats about forced termination, and lacks any guidance about expected task or result behavior. The output schema reduces the return-value burden, but selection and safety context remain incomplete.

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 only explains confirm=true, leaving node, vmid, and especially vm_type unexplained. The vm_type parameter matters for choosing between QEMU and LXC, and its absence is a real gap.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource: 'Hard stop a VM/container.' The 'Hard' qualifier directly differentiates it from the sibling pve_shutdown_vm, making the forceful nature of the operation unmistakable.

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 this is the forceful alternative to shutdown, but it never explicitly states when to prefer it over pve_shutdown_vm or pve_reboot_vm. It does provide the essential precondition 'Requires confirm=true', which is useful, but no exclusion or alternative-selection guidance.

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