pve_backup_vm

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. 'Backup a VM' implies a write operation that creates backup data, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral aspects: whether this operation is destructive to the running VM, what permissions are required, whether it's synchronous/asynchronous, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise at just three words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, within the scoring framework, it's perfectly front-loaded with zero wasted words. Every word directly contributes to stating the tool's purpose, making it maximally efficient in terms of word economy.

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 backup tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. Backup operations typically have important behavioral considerations (VM state during backup, storage requirements, performance impact) that aren't addressed. The description fails to provide the necessary context for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively, especially given the complexity implied by the parameter set.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the structured schema. The description adds no parameter information whatsoever - it doesn't explain what 'node', 'vmid', 'storage' refer to, or clarify the meaning of backup modes. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline is 3, but the description adds zero value beyond what's already 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 'Backup a VM' clearly states the action (backup) and resource (VM), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it's quite vague - it doesn't specify what type of backup (full, incremental, snapshot-based) or distinguish this tool from potential sibling backup-related tools (though none are listed among the siblings). It's better than a tautology but lacks specificity.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison to other backup methods. Given the extensive list of sibling tools (including many VM management tools), this lack of contextual guidance is a significant deficiency.

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