pve_reset_vm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'hard reset' which implies forceful, immediate power cycling, but doesn't detail consequences like potential data corruption, interruption of services, or that it mimics pulling the plug. Critical behavioral aspects like permissions required, whether it's synchronous/asynchronous, or error conditions are omitted.

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?

Extremely concise with a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy 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?

For a destructive operation like a hard reset with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover critical context such as what the tool returns (e.g., task ID, success status), error handling, prerequisites (e.g., VM must be running), or safety warnings. The combination of high-risk action and lack of structured metadata demands more descriptive completeness.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional semantic context about parameters like what 'node' refers to in the Proxmox context, what VM IDs are, or when to use 'skiplock'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since 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 clearly states the action ('Reset') and target resource ('a virtual machine') with specificity about the reset type ('hard reset'), which distinguishes it from softer reboots. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pve_reboot_vm or pve_stop_vm/start_vm, which would require more comparative context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pve_reboot_vm (soft reboot) or pve_stop_vm/pve_start_vm (graceful shutdown/start). The description implies a forceful reset but doesn't specify scenarios where this is appropriate or warn against potential data loss or disruption.

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