pve_update_vm

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

Annotations already declare the non-read-only, non-destructive profile, so the description must add beyond that — and it does surface the confirm=true safety gate, which the schema does not explain. But it says nothing about whether changes apply live or need a reboot, what happens when confirm is omitted, or that the `delete` parameter removes keys, which for a config mutation tool is meaningful missing context.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the hard precondition second. No filler, no restating of the title.

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?

With 6 undocumented parameters, a nested free-form settings object, and no annotation coverage of mutation semantics, this description is too thin. The output schema relieves it of explaining return values, but the `delete` parameter and the node/kind targeting options remain entirely opaque to an 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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies the `settings` object via an example and explains `confirm`, but leaves `vmid`, `node`, `kind`, and especially `delete` (an array of key names) completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update guest configuration keys") and gives a concrete example of the settings shape. It clearly implies a mutation of VM config rather than power state or deletion, which distinguishes it from pve_vm_power and pve_delete_vm, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

"Requires confirm=true" is a concrete precondition for invocation, which is genuinely useful. However, there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus pve_vm_power, pve_clone_vm, or pve_api_request, and no mention of when not to use it.

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