pve_upload_to_storage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool 'returns upload URL info', which adds some behavioral context about the output. However, it lacks critical details such as whether this is a mutation (likely yes, as it uploads), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling, leaving significant gaps in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Upload ISO or template to storage') and includes the return value. It avoids unnecessary words, making it appropriately sized, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes from the purpose.

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 complexity of an upload operation with 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, permissions), usage context, and error handling, making it inadequate for a tool that likely involves mutation and network operations.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (node, storage, content, filename) with descriptions. The description adds minimal value by hinting at the content types ('ISO or template'), which aligns with the enum in the schema, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('Upload') and resource ('ISO or template to storage'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_download_url_to_storage', which handles downloads rather than uploads, but this distinction is only implied by the verb choice rather than explicitly stated.

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, such as 'pve_download_url_to_storage' for downloads or other storage-related tools. It mentions the return value ('returns upload URL info'), but this doesn't help in selecting the tool over others in the context of the sibling list.

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