pve_backup_job_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that the tool performs a mutation, defaults to dry-run, and that execution requires confirm=True. It also clarifies config-only behavior and mutual exclusivity. Missing details about required permissions or error conditions, but overall solid for a creation tool.

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 the most critical information (mutation, dry-run). Every sentence adds distinct value without redundancy. The structure is clear and easy to parse.

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?

While the description covers the core functionality, dry-run behavior, and guest selection, it omits guidance on required parameters (job_id, schedule, storage are required per schema but not highlighted) and does not explain optional parameters like compress, comment, or enabled. The context signals indicate an output schema exists, so return values are not needed, but the missing parameter explanations leave gaps.

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 8% (only proximo_target has a description). The description adds meaning for vmid, all_guests, pool, and exclude, but fails to explain many critical parameters like job_id, schedule, storage, compress, enabled, comment, and mode. Given 13 parameters and low schema coverage, the description does not adequately compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 explicitly states 'create a PVE cluster backup job' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_backup (which runs a backup) and pve_backup_job_update by focusing on creation. The 'MUTATION:' prefix further clarifies the action.

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 clearly explains the dry-run behavior and how to execute (confirm=True). It also notes that existing backups are unaffected and guest selection is mutually exclusive. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools like pve_backup_job_update or mention prerequisites, which would elevate it to a 5.

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