pve_group_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It labels the tool as MUTATION, explains dry-run default, low risk, returns a plan preview, and clarifies it does not modify membership. This is transparent but could mention more about idempotency or side effects.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with 'MUTATION'. Each sentence adds distinct value: what it does, default behavior, return value, and what it doesn't do. 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 has 4 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key workflow and safety aspects. It does not detail the output schema structure, but that is likely covered by the output schema itself. Minor omission is error handling or prerequisites.

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 description coverage is low (25%). The description explains the confirm parameter and the overall purpose, but does not detail the comment field (nullable, format) or that groupid is required. It adds some value beyond the schema but not enough to fully compensate.

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 'update a group's comment' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_group_create or pve_group_delete by noting it only modifies the comment and does not alter membership.

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 a clear workflow: dry-run by default, use confirm=True to execute. It implies the tool is for modifying comments only, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternative tools for other updates.

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