stop_guest

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

The description discloses the key behavioral consequence—'The guest OS gets no chance to flush its disks'—revealing potential data loss risk. This goes well beyond the annotations (which only include false hints) and adds critical safety information that an agent needs before invoking a forceful operation.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—yet packs in the action, the consequence, and the preferred alternative. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Immediately stop' and every word earns its place with no filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the operation's nature and cautionary note, but could have added when this forceful stop is appropriate (e.g., if no other option) or how it differs from suspend/reboot. Still, it is adequate for the scenario.

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 description does not mention the parameter 'vmid' at all, giving 0% schema coverage. However, the schema itself clearly defines 'vmid' as an integer and it is the sole required parameter, making its meaning intuitive. The description adds no extra context, but the parameter is simple enough that the schema suffices.

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 action: 'Immediately stop a VM or container' and uses the vivid analogy 'like pulling the power cord' to convey an abrupt power-off. It also distinguishes from the sibling 'shutdown_guest' by explicitly preferring a graceful shutdown, making the tool's specific purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'prefer shutdown_guest' indicates when NOT to use this tool, and the phrase 'Immediately stop... like pulling the power cord' implies emergency or forced stop scenarios. This clearly differentiates it from graceful alternatives among the siblings.

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