vm_snapshot_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a dry_run preview mode, the uniqueness constraint on name (which clarifies the non-idempotent behavior), and node auto-location when omitted. It does not mention return/async behavior or snapshot storage cost.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, inverse, and preview hint, followed by a compact args list. The args block is justified by 0% schema description coverage, though 'name must be unique' slightly duplicates the uniqueness statement in the behavioral framing.

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 write tool with no output schema and a 5-param surface, the description covers identity, parameters, safety framing, and a preview path. It omits what the call returns or whether it is synchronous, which is the main remaining gap.

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 carries the full burden and does so for all five parameters: vmid (numeric Proxmox VM id), name (unique per VM), dry_run (preview only), target (from config), node (omit to auto-locate). It supplies semantics the bare schema types cannot convey.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a named snapshot of a VM') and immediately names the inverse tool vm_snapshot_delete, which cleanly separates it from the destructive and rollback siblings. The [WRITE] tag further front-loads the operation class.

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?

Gives clear operational context: the inverse operation is named and the dry_run preview path is called out. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over vm_snapshot_rollback or any prerequisite state (e.g. VM running/stopped), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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