pdm_pve_qemu_power

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses the mutation nature, the dry-run default returning a PLAN, the need for confirm=True to execute, and that it is task-backed with status 'submitted'. It clearly sets expectations for the tool's behavior.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with key terminology ('MUTATION:' and actions). Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 input schema covers all parameters and an output schema exists (so return values are defined elsewhere), the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage, behavior, and alternatives.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the dry-run/confirm mechanism and the PLAN concept, but does not elaborate on individual parameter meanings 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 tool's purpose: starting, stopping, shutting down, or resuming a VM on a PDM-registered remote. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools (pdm_pve_lxc_power for containers, pve_guest_power for direct cluster control).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, including specific tool names for containers and direct cluster power operations. It also explains the dry-run default and confirm parameter for execution.

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