pve_agent_fs

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

With no annotations, the description correctly discloses that this is a mutation, the dry-run and confirm pattern, prerequisites, and the need for paired calls due to no undo. It does not detail error behaviors or authorization specifics beyond env vars, but covers the key behavioral traits.

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 (4-5 sentences) and well-structured: mutation label, dry-run flow, prerequisites, command list, and pairing warning. Every sentence adds necessary information without 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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 params, 2 required) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential workflow. It does not explain output/return values, but the schema handles that. The description is complete enough for correct tool invocation.

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 low (20%), but the description adds meaning for 'command' (lists three options) and 'confirm' (dry-run behavior). However, it doesn't elaborate on 'node' or 'vmid' beyond the schema, and the command options could have been clearer with explicit enumeration. Overall, it partially compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: performing fsfreeze-freeze, fsfreeze-thaw, or fstrim inside a guest via the QEMU agent. It names the specific operations and the resource (guest filesystem), distinguishing it from sibling agent tools like pve_agent_exec or pve_agent_file_read.

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 usage: dry-run by default requiring confirm=True for execution, prerequisites (PROXIMO_ENABLE_AGENT=1 and VMID in allowlist), and a critical warning to always pair freeze with thaw. It clearly tells the agent when and how to use the tool.

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