Guest Backups

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutable nature is known. The description adds 'requires elevated permissions', which is useful operational context. However, it does not disclose side effects like restore overwriting existing guests, or that some actions (list) are read-only while others are destructive. Given the annotation coverage, the description contributes minimal extra behavioral detail.

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?

A single concise sentence with no filler. The action list and guest type are front-loaded, and the permission note is appended efficiently. 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?

With 9 parameters and 4 distinct actions, the description is thin. It does not explain how parameters map to actions (e.g., archive/volume for restore, storage/compress for create). No output schema exists, so the description could clarify typical return values. The high schema coverage mitigates, but the lack of action-specific guidance leaves an agent to infer parameter requirements from the schema alone.

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 89%, so parameters are already largely documented. The description adds no parameter-level semantics (e.g., which parameters apply to which action). Since the schema carries the semantic weight, a baseline 3 is appropriate; no additional value is provided.

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 resource ('guest backups') and enumerates the actions ('create, list, restore, delete'), and specifies the guest types (VMs and LXC containers). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxmox_guest_snapshot (snapshots) and proxmox_file_restore (file-level restore), leaving no ambiguity about its scope.

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 gives context (guests, elevated permissions) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or specific conditions that would route an agent to another tool. The 'requires elevated permissions' is a prerequisite but not a usage selector.

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