pve_resize_container_disk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Resize container disk' implies a destructive write operation that modifies disk allocation, but it fails to mention critical details: whether the container needs to be stopped, if the operation is reversible, potential data loss risks, required permissions, or rate limits. This omission is significant for a tool that likely alters system state.

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 with just three words, making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary verbiage. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as it lacks essential details. Every word ('Resize', 'container', 'disk') is relevant to the tool's core function, so it earns full marks for brevity and structure.

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 a disk-resizing operation, the absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, prerequisites), usage context, or result expectations. For a tool with 5 parameters and potential system impact, this minimal description fails to provide adequate guidance for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 input schema already documents all five parameters (node, vmid, disk, size, digest) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining disk naming conventions (e.g., 'rootfs' for root filesystem) or size format examples beyond '+10G'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Resize container disk' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_resize_container_disk' without adding meaningful clarification. While it does specify the verb ('resize') and resource ('container disk'), it lacks specificity about what 'resize' entails (e.g., increasing or decreasing disk size) and doesn't differentiate it from sibling tools like 'pve_resize_vm_disk', which performs a similar operation on VMs instead of containers.

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., container must be stopped), exclusions (e.g., cannot resize certain disk types), or related tools like 'pve_resize_vm_disk' for VMs. This leaves the agent with no context for making an informed choice among sibling operations.

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