pve_api

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful behaviors: params are schema-validated first, and task-returning calls block until completion unless wait=false. However, it omits critical traits for an arbitrary-endpoint tool — that DELETE/POST are mutating and potentially destructive, what confirm gates, what happens on timeout, and what shape the response takes.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and an immediately usable example, with no filler. It is efficient, though the sentences read as disconnected notes rather than a structured orientation for a high-risk tool.

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 7-parameter, annotation-free, output-schema-free escape-hatch tool, the definition is only minimally viable: it covers validation, task-waiting, and dry-run, but says nothing about return values or the destructive potential of arbitrary calls. An agent could invoke it correctly for a GET but lacks enough context to act safely on a DELETE.

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 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and it only partially does: it explains wait, dry_run, the path format via example, and implies params from the validation sentence. The safety-critical 'confirm' parameter and 'timeout' are never mentioned, leaving real gaps for a tool that can issue DELETE calls.

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 gives a specific verb+resource combination: it calls an arbitrary PVE API endpoint, illustrated with a concrete example path ("GET", "/nodes/pve1/qemu/100/config"). That is clear enough for an agent to know what the tool does, but it never says how it relates to the many specialized siblings (pve_guest, pve_backup, pve_snapshot), so it doesn't distinguish itself as the generic fallback.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to prefer this tool only when no specialized sibling covers the operation, and nothing says when not to use it. The only conditional guidance is about behavior toggles (wait=false, dry_run=true), not about choosing this tool over alternatives.

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