pve_update_pool

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. 'Update pool configuration' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this requires administrative permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on running VMs), or error handling. The description is minimal and fails to add meaningful 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 with just three words, which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, it borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, mutation operation). While efficient, it could benefit from slightly more detail to be fully helpful without becoming verbose.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails, the expected outcomes, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies pool configurations—potentially affecting VMs and storage—this lack of context is a significant gap, making it inadequate for 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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema (e.g., poolid, comment, vms, storage, delete). The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, such as explaining the format for VM IDs or how 'delete' interacts with 'vms' and 'storage'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.

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 pool configuration' clearly states the action (update) and target (pool configuration), which is adequate. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects of pool configuration can be updated (e.g., VMs, storage) and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like pve_update_storage or pve_update_group, which follow similar naming patterns. It's not tautological but remains vague about scope.

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. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for modifying existing pools versus creating new ones (pve_create_pool) or deleting them (pve_delete_pool). The description offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without directional cues.

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