run_bulk_operation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a mutating operation with potentially broad impact, does not explain the confirm flag or stop_on_error behavior, and 'matching filters' is vague. The description omits critical safety and error-handling context.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and target scope. No filler or redundant information; every word adds value.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, batch mutation, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on filter semantics, required confirm behavior, error handling, and what the operation returns. The description is insufficient for safe and correct use.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning for the action parameter by listing supported values (start, stop, etc.) and identifies resource types (VMs/LXC containers), but it does not explain node, tags, vmids, confirm, or stop_on_error. Most parameters remain undefined.

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 uses a specific verb 'Execute batch lifecycle actions' and clearly lists the actions (start, stop, shutdown, pause, resume) and target types (VMs or LXC containers). This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that operate on individual VMs or containers, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clear context: it is for batch lifecycle operations across filters, implying it should be used when multiple resources need the same action. However, it does not explicitly contrast with individual lifecycle tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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