proxmox_guest_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries behavioral disclosure itself: it communicates that the operation is a mutating start action, is scoped to one explicitly targeted guest, and returns an async task UPID. It does not cover edge behaviors such as failure when the guest is already running or permission requirements, but the core safety and response traits are present.

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 front-loaded sentence states action, scope, condition, and return value with no filler. Every element 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?

For a state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the essential action, safety gate, and return type. It is still thin on when-to-use versus sibling tools and on failure/edge behavior, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds a little operational meaning by linking 'confirmation' to the confirm flag and 'one explicitly targeted' to vmid, but it does not provide parameter-level syntax or constraints 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 opens with the specific verb 'Start' and identifies the resource ('Proxmox guest'), adds scope ('one explicitly targeted'), and names the returned value ('accepted task UPID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxmox_guest_shutdown, proxmox_guest_reboot, and proxmox_status.

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?

It states the core condition for use—starting a single Proxmox guest after user confirmation—which is clear operational context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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