proxmox_agent_power

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the use of QEMU agent and permission requirements, but does not describe side effects (e.g., whether shutdown is graceful, what happens to suspended state details, whether operations are synchronous or return immediately). This is insufficient for a tool that can alter VM state significantly.

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 a single sentence with a clear list of operations and a note on permissions. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks critical context. It does not explain what happens after each operation (e.g., return value, polling for completion), whether the tool is synchronous, or what state the VM is left in after suspending. This is incomplete for a potentially disruptive tool.

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 67%, with descriptions for node and vmid already provided. The description adds minimal value by enumerating the operation values (shutdown, suspend_disk, etc.), which are otherwise only listed as an enum in the schema. This helps clarify the parameter's meaning but does not fully compensate for the lack of description for the operation parameter in the schema.

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's purpose: 'Guest power control via QEMU agent' and lists the specific operations (shutdown, suspend_disk, suspend_ram, suspend_hybrid). It distinguishes itself by mentioning the QEMU agent, which implies a graceful approach compared to other power tools like proxmox_guest_shutdown or proxmox_guest_stop. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from those sibling tools.

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 usage via QEMU agent and notes 'requires elevated permissions', but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like proxmox_guest_shutdown (which may use ACPI) or proxmox_guest_stop (force stop). No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are provided.

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