pve_backup_job_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutation nature, dry-run default, and that it only affects configuration without impacting existing backups. This is good transparency, though it lacks details on authorization or error conditions.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences to convey essential information. It front-loads the mutation indicator and key behavior, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has 10 parameters, a mutation nature, and an output schema (not provided), the description covers the core safety model but lacks parameter-level context. It is minimally complete for basic use but insufficient for complex scenarios.

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 schema has 10 parameters with only 10% description coverage (only proximo_target is described). The description adds no parameter details except the confirm flag. This is insufficient for a tool with many parameters, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names alone.

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 it updates a PVE cluster backup job, using the verb 'update' and identifying the resource. Among siblings like pve_backup_job_create, pve_backup_job_delete, and pve_backup_job_list, this tool is distinct as the mutation counterpart, and the description reinforces that with 'MUTATION:' prefix and dry-run behavior.

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 explicitly states the default dry-run behavior and the requirement to set confirm=True to execute, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the instructions are sufficient for basic usage.

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