pve_create_pool

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. 'Create resource pool' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether this is destructive to existing resources, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary context for a mutation 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?

The description is extremely concise at just two words. While it's under-specified for a mutation tool, it contains zero wasted words and is front-loaded with the core action. Every word ('Create', 'resource', 'pool') contributes directly to the tool's purpose.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a resource pool is, when it should be created, what permissions are needed, what the expected outcome is, or how it relates to other Proxmox VE resources. The description fails to provide the necessary context for an agent to understand and use this tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (poolid, comment) having descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to the 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 'Create resource pool' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'pve_create_pool'. It specifies the verb 'create' and resource 'resource pool', but provides no additional detail about what a resource pool is or what this creation entails. It doesn't distinguish this tool from other 'create' tools in the sibling list like pve_create_container or pve_create_vm.

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 are many other creation tools in the sibling list (pve_create_container, pve_create_vm, pve_create_user, etc.), but the description offers no context about when a resource pool is needed versus other resources. No prerequisites, constraints, or use cases are mentioned.

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