pdm_pve_lxc_snapshot_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a mutation (MUTATION:), performs a dry run by default, and lacks a vmstate option for containers. However, it does not detail success effects, prerequisites, idempotency, or side effects. The behavioral information is present but incomplete.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences plus a label. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second provides critical behavioral notes (no vmstate, dry-run default). No wasted words, effectively front-loaded with 'MUTATION:'.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, mutation, dry-run feature) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers essential behavioral context (dry-run, no vmstate) but lacks details on prerequisites, error scenarios, or parameter roles. With low schema coverage and no annotations, more completeness would be beneficial. It is adequate for a simple tool but not comprehensive.

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 only 17% (only proximo_target has a description). The tool description does not elaborate on any of the 6 parameters (vmid, remote, snapname, confirm, description, proximo_target). It only mentions the absence of a vmstate option, which is not a parameter. Thus, the description adds negligible value beyond the schema for parameter understanding.

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 'snapshot' and the resource 'container on a PDM-registered remote' via PDM. It distinguishes from direct PVE snapshot tools and sibling LXC snapshot operations (delete, rollback) by specifying 'through PDM'.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pve_snapshot_create. It provides context about containers lacking RAM state and a dry-run default, but no usage exclusions or comparison with sibling tools. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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