pve_update_storage

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. 'Update storage configuration' implies a mutation operation but fails to describe critical behaviors such as required permissions, whether changes are destructive or reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool with 9 parameters that likely modifies system storage settings.

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 three words, with zero wasted language. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient for quick scanning, though this brevity contributes to its lack of detail in other dimensions.

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 complex mutation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, return values, error handling, or practical usage scenarios, leaving significant gaps that hinder an agent's ability to invoke 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing basic documentation for all 9 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting, but does not compensate with any extra context about parameter interactions or usage examples.

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 storage configuration' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'pve_update_storage' with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'update' and resource 'storage configuration', but lacks specificity about what aspects of storage configuration are updated or how it differs from sibling tools like 'pve_create_storage' or 'pve_delete_storage'.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no indication of when this update operation is applicable compared to other storage-related tools in the sibling list.

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