system_shutdown

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: the guest cannot reconnect until the VM is started externally, and the VM remains locked by the current session, requiring vm_unlock. This is valuable behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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 with the primary action front-loaded, followed by essential caveats. There is no fluff, no repetition of schema defaults, and every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the critical lock lifecycle and post-shutdown workflow well. However, for a destructive tool with three parameters, it omits the meaning of force and delay_seconds, and it does not describe expected output or failure states. Given no output schema, there are meaningful gaps.

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?

Only vm_name is described in the schema (33% coverage). The other two parameters, force and delay_seconds, have only type/default/range information and are not mentioned in the description. An agent cannot infer their semantic meaning from either source.

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 states a concrete action ('Shut down Windows 98') and adds distinguishing context: the guest cannot reconnect and the VM remains locked until an external start. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like system_reboot or qemu_vm_shutdown, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 intended workflow is implied: shut down the guest, then call vm_unlock when finished. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as system_reboot, qemu_vm_shutdown, or qemu_vm_force_stop, nor any exclusions.

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