pve_cluster_set_options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Set cluster options' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified options. This leaves the agent with critical gaps for a configuration tool.

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?

While concise with only three words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It fails to provide necessary context about what 'cluster options' encompasses or why this tool exists. Conciseness should not come at the expense of basic utility - this description is too brief to be helpful.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what cluster options are, what the tool returns, or behavioral considerations. The agent would need to infer too much from the minimal description and schema alone, especially for a write operation that could have significant system impact.

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 100%, with all 5 parameters clearly documented in the input schema (e.g., 'keyboard' as 'Default keyboard layout'). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Set cluster options' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_cluster_set_options'. It provides a verb ('Set') and resource ('cluster options'), but lacks specificity about what cluster options are being set or how this differs from sibling tools like 'pve_cluster_options' or 'pve_set_cluster_firewall_options'. The purpose is stated but not clearly distinguished from alternatives.

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 tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like 'pve_cluster_options' (likely for reading) and 'pve_set_cluster_firewall_options' (for firewall-specific settings), the agent receives no help in selecting this tool for general cluster configuration updates.

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