stop_vm

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool attempts graceful shutdown first and forces after timeout, and warns that resource changes require full stop+start. This gives good insight beyond the schema.

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: first covers the primary action and behavior, second adds critical context about resource allocation. No fluff, 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?

Given an output schema exists (not shown), return values are covered. The description explains the main behavior and important nuance about resource changes. Missing details like default timeout duration or error handling, but adequate for typical usage.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the force parameter implicitly via the graceful/force behavior, but does not describe vm_id (what it identifies) or that it must be an integer. Partial compensation for force, none for vm_id.

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 stops a virtual machine, specifying the graceful-then-force approach. It distinguishes from siblings like start_vm and update_vm by mentioning the required stop+start for RAM/CPU changes, though it does not explicitly compare.

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?

Implied usage: use this tool to stop a VM, with an optional force flag. The note about RAM/CPU changes provides a usage condition (must stop+start, not in-guest reboot), but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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