pve_create_backup_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new backup job' implies a write operation that may have side effects (e.g., scheduling tasks, consuming storage), but it doesn't disclose critical behaviors like whether the job runs immediately, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (11 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly and what to expect in return.

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%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., 'vmid' vs. 'all'), default behaviors, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Create a new backup job' clearly states the action (create) and resource (backup job), but it's vague about what a backup job entails—it doesn't specify that it's for scheduling automated backups of VMs/containers in Proxmox VE. It distinguishes from siblings like 'pve_backup_vm' (one-time backup) and 'pve_create_replication_job' (different type of job), but the distinction is implicit rather than explicit.

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 (e.g., needing storage configured), when to use it over one-time backups ('pve_backup_vm'), or how it relates to other job types like replication jobs. Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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