pdm_pve_lxc_snapshot_create

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It clearly states it is a mutation, additive and low risk, creates a restore point without touching existing state, and describes the default plan behavior and what confirmation does. This is thorough.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No filler or redundancy.

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 schema coverage is 100% and an output schema exists, the description covers purpose, alternative, and safety. It could mention that the remote must be PDM-registered, but that is implied by the tool name and first sentence.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter details beyond noting the absence of vmstate option for containers. It does not elaborate on any parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('snapshot a container on a PDM-registered remote'), distinguishes from the VM sibling tool, and specifies the target. It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool (for containers) and points to the alternative for VMs. It also explains the dry-run behavior and confirm flag, but lacks explicit exclusions or 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.