pve_resume_vm

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. It states the action ('resume') but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify required permissions, whether the operation is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., network reconnection), or error conditions (e.g., if the VM isn't suspended). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: 'Resume a suspended virtual machine'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in a tool definition.

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 (a mutation tool for resuming VMs), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or error handling, nor does it explain the return value or success criteria. For a tool that changes system state, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 four parameters (node, vmid, nocheck, skiplock) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as explaining what 'nocheck' or 'skiplock' do in practice or providing examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 'Resume a suspended virtual machine' clearly states the verb ('resume') and resource ('suspended virtual machine'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_resume_container' or 'pve_start_vm' (which might start a stopped VM rather than resume a suspended one), so it doesn't reach the highest level of sibling distinction.

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., the VM must be in a suspended state), exclusions (e.g., not for stopped VMs), or refer to sibling tools like 'pve_start_vm' for different scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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