pve_create_container

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses mutation, dry-run default, async behavior (returns UPID), and the poll suggestion. It could mention potential errors (e.g., vmid conflict) or irreversibility, but the async workflow is well-documented.

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?

Four concise sentences. The first sets the verb and resource, the second explains the dry-run/async workflow, the third details the key options parameter, and the fourth lists alternatives. No wasted words.

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 complexity (7 parameters, 3 required, async output with UPID), the description covers workflow, parameter usage, and alternatives. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. The mention of polling with pve_task_status completes the usage lifecycle.

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 100%, but the description adds significant value by explaining the `options` parameter with concrete examples (cores, memory, net0, rootfs, password) and clarifying the `confirm` parameter's role in dry-run vs. execution.

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 starts with 'MUTATION: create a new LXC container', clearly stating the verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools pve_create_vm (QEMU) and pve_clone (copy), so an agent can immediately identify the correct tool for creating an LXC container.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'create a new LXC container'. It also gives alternatives: 'For a QEMU VM use pve_create_vm; to copy an existing guest instead use pve_clone.' The dry-run default and confirm parameter further guide usage.

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