pve_agent_file_write

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excellently discloses key behaviors: mutation, dry-run default, content redaction from ledger, no undo, and unverified endpoint. This goes beyond basic annotations.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. Minor improvement could be grouping related points.

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 existence of an output schema, the description covers the mutation behavior, confirm pattern, prerequisites, redaction, and endpoint uncertainty. It is fairly complete for a file-write tool, though some details about the plan or ledger format may be inferred from the output schema.

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 only 17%, so description should compensate. It explains the 'confirm' parameter (dry-run vs execute) and mentions file path must be absolute ('file') and content redacted ('content'), but does not describe 'vmid', 'node', or 'proximo_target'. Partial but incomplete coverage.

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 'write a file inside the guest via the qemu-agent', specifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like pve_agent_file_read and pve_agent_exec by focusing on file writing.

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 explains the dry-run/confirm mechanism, prerequisites (PROXIMO_ENABLE_AGENT=1 and VMID in ALLOWLIST), and file path requirement. It provides clear context for when to use, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or compare to other agent tools.

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