pve_suspend_container

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Suspend a container' implies a state change operation, but it doesn't explain what suspension means in this context (e.g., pausing vs. saving state to disk), whether it's reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to running processes. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 three words ('Suspend a container'), with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it may be too brief for adequate completeness, as a standalone statement it's structurally efficient.

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 state-changing operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what suspension entails, how it differs from other stop operations, what the expected outcome is, or whether there are side effects. Given the complexity of container management and the presence of many sibling tools for container state control, more context is needed.

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 clear parameter documentation ('node' as node name, 'vmid' as container ID). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate but also adds no extra value.

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 'Suspend a container' clearly states the verb ('suspend') and resource ('container'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_stop_container' or 'pve_shutdown_container' that also affect container state, leaving ambiguity about what distinguishes suspension from other stopping methods.

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. With sibling tools like 'pve_stop_container', 'pve_shutdown_container', 'pve_reboot_container', and 'pve_resume_container' available, there's no indication of when suspension is appropriate versus other state-changing operations or how it relates to resumption.

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