pve_api_request

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds materially: the tool hits arbitrary paths (so any verb, including DELETE, is possible) and is disabled unless an environment flag is set. Not stating error behavior or what the raw response looks like keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, the gating requirement placed immediately after the purpose. No filler, nothing buried.

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 fully generic escape hatch with no parameter documentation and a schema-coverage of zero, the description is not enough to call it correctly — the shape of 'path' and the data/params split are critical and undocumented. The existence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but not from explaining inputs.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and provides essentially nothing: it never explains that 'path' is a PVE API route, that 'method' selects the verb, or how 'data' (body) differs from 'params' (query). An agent must guess at the calling convention.

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 names a concrete action (call) and resource (arbitrary PVE API path) and labels itself an 'escape hatch', which separates it from the 20+ focused siblings like pve_vm_power and pve_update_vm. It stops short of saying what kinds of operations belong here, but the intent is unmistakable.

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 'escape hatch' framing implies this is a fallback for cases the dedicated tools don't cover, and the PVE_ALLOW_RAW_API=true prerequisite is a real gating condition. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not guidance is given, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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