pve_update_vm_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update VM configuration' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether changes are immediate or pending, if the VM needs to be stopped, what happens on failure, or rate limits. For a complex mutation tool with 19 parameters, this is critically insufficient.

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. While this represents severe under-specification for such a complex tool, from a pure conciseness perspective it's front-loaded with zero wasted words. Every word ('Update', 'VM', 'configuration') contributes to the core message, albeit minimally.

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 19 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'configuration' encompasses, behavioral implications, success/failure responses, or usage context. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly despite the comprehensive schema.

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 fully documents all 19 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the generic 'configuration' hint. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., 'delete' vs. 'revert'), parameter constraints, or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 VM configuration' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_update_vm_config'. It provides a generic verb ('Update') and resource ('VM configuration') but lacks specificity about what aspects of VM configuration can be modified or how this differs from sibling tools like 'pve_update_container_config' or 'pve_get_vm_config'.

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 the VM to be stopped for certain changes), distinguish it from similar tools (e.g., 'pve_update_container_config' for containers vs. VMs), or indicate when not to use it (e.g., for read-only operations).

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