pve_create_vm_snapshot

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 VM snapshot' implies a write operation that modifies system state, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it's destructive to existing snapshots, what happens to VM state during creation (hinted by the 'vmstate' parameter but not explained), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary context for safe invocation.

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 'Create VM snapshot' is extremely concise—just three words—and front-loaded with the core action. There is zero waste or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly. While it may be under-specified in other dimensions, in terms of brevity and structure, it is optimal.

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 complexity of creating a VM snapshot (a mutation operation with potential system impact), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, effects on VM state, or error conditions, which are crucial for safe tool use. The schema handles parameters well, but the overall context for invocation is insufficient.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all parameters clearly documented in the schema itself (e.g., node name, VM ID, snapshot name, description, VM state inclusion). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting without description enhancement.

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 VM snapshot' clearly states the action (create) and resource (VM snapshot), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'pve_create_container_snapshot' or other snapshot-related tools like 'pve_rollback_vm_snapshot' and 'pve_delete_vm_snapshot', leaving ambiguity about when to use each. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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. There are multiple sibling tools related to VM snapshots (e.g., pve_create_container_snapshot, pve_rollback_vm_snapshot, pve_delete_vm_snapshot, pve_get_vm_snapshot_config, pve_list_vm_snapshots), but the description doesn't mention any of them or specify contexts like creating vs. managing snapshots. This absence of usage guidance is a significant gap.

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