pve_start_guest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not disclose side effects, such as whether the guest must be stopped first, whether the operation is asynchronous, or what happens if the guest is already running. For a state-changing operation, this is a significant gap.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful context, but for what it contains, it is concise and well-structured.

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 that this is a state-changing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. An agent would not know what 'confirm' means, what the expected behavior is for an already-running guest, or what the return value indicates. The description is minimally viable but leaves critical gaps.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. The parameter names (node, guest_type, vmid, confirm) are self-explanatory to some degree, but the 'confirm' parameter is ambiguous—it is unclear what value it expects or why confirmation is needed. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Arranca una VM o LXC permitido' clearly states the action (start) and the resource (a VM or LXC container), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pve_shutdown_guest and pve_reboot_guest. However, it is in Spanish and does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as checking guest status first, or when to prefer pve_start_guest over pve_shutdown_guest or pve_reboot_guest. The context is implied by the verb 'start' but no explicit usage conditions are provided.

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