pve_create_vm

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: mutation, dry-run safety mechanism, and asynchronous nature with UPID return. With no annotations provided, this is good transparency. It could mention prerequisites or error behavior, but the core user-facing behavior is well covered.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds distinct value: mutation identifier, dry-run/async behavior, options clarification, and sibling tool pointers. 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 complexity of creating a VM, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, its safety mechanism, async flow, and key parameter guidance. The input schema covers remaining details (node, vmid, confirm, options, target). With output schema implied (UPID), the description is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds value by exemplifying the `options` parameter contents (cores, memory, net0, scsi0, ostype), which helps the agent understand what to include. This goes slightly beyond the schema's generic description.

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 creates a new QEMU VM (specific verb+resource) and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools: 'For an LXC container use pve_create_container; to copy an existing guest instead use pve_clone.' This provides immediate clarity on scope and differentiation.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: dry-run by default, set confirm=True to execute, async returns UPID for polling. It also tells the agent when to use alternative tools for LXC containers or cloning. This fully covers when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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