pve_create_vm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses mutation, async behavior (returns UPID), and dry-run default, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects beyond the basic workflow.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver purpose, key behaviors (dry-run, confirm, async), and a parameter hint. No fluff, front-loaded with the most important information.

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 core aspects, it omits prerequisites (e.g., storage, network), how to handle the returned UPID, and the role of node/other parameters. For a complex mutation tool, more detail would enhance completeness.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that `options` carries VM parameters like cores, memory, net0, etc. This compensates for low schema description coverage (20%) and aids understanding of the key parameter.

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 'create a new QEMU VM' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like pve_create_container (container) and pve_clone (cloning), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions dry-run by default and confirm=True, providing a usage pattern. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like pve_restore or pve_clone, leaving some ambiguity.

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