Bulk Guest Operations

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds only 'all elevated', which is cryptic and does not explain side effects, reversibility, or permission requirements. It does not disclose that the operation affects all guests on the node, which is a significant behavioral trait beyond the annotation.

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 very short (one sentence plus a cryptic parenthetical). It front-loads the main purpose but the 'action=start_all|stop_all|migrate_all (all elevated)' part is dense and ambiguous. It could be clearer and more structured, but it is not verbose.

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 destructive bulk operation with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'all elevated' means, that migrate_all requires a target node, the impact on all guests, or any safety considerations. The description relies entirely on annotations for safety, but does not provide operational context needed to call the tool correctly.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions), so the schema already documents node, target, maxworkers, and with-local-disks. The description adds the enum values in the text but these are already in the schema enum. It does not explain that target is required for migrate_all or how maxworkers affects parallelism, but the schema descriptions cover basic semantics. The description adds marginal value beyond 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 states a specific verb ('operations') and resource ('guests'), and lists the specific action enum values. It distinguishes from individual guest tools by using 'bulk' and the 'all' suffixes (start_all, stop_all, migrate_all). However, it does not explicitly mention the scope is per-node, and 'all elevated' is ambiguous, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this bulk tool versus individual guest tools like proxmox_guest_start or proxmox_guest_migrate. It does not state that it affects all guests on a node at once, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions that would select this tool over the alternatives.

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