pve_update_backup_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal insight. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or any rate limits or side effects. The description fails to add meaningful context beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified—it lacks necessary detail for a mutation tool. While there's no wasted language, the description fails to provide adequate information, making it more sparse than appropriately concise.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, return values, error conditions, or relationship to other backup operations. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema and inference, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to use this tool effectively in context with its many sibling tools.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, providing clear documentation for all 7 parameters including their types, descriptions, and one enum. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it doesn't enhance understanding of parameter meanings or usage. However, since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't detract from the existing documentation.

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 'Update a backup job' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't explain what aspects of a backup job can be updated or what the operation entails beyond the basic verb-noun pairing. While it identifies the resource (backup job), it lacks the detail needed to distinguish it meaningfully from other backup-related tools like pve_create_backup_job or pve_delete_backup_job.

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., needing an existing backup job ID), when to choose update over create or delete, or how it relates to sibling tools like pve_list_backup_jobs. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema, with no explicit context from the description.

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