pve_guest_config_set

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

The description fully discloses key behaviors: dry-run by default, synchronous execution, return of prior_config for revert, and the PLAN diff. No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so excellently.

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, each adding value. Front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, then output. 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?

For a mutation tool with dry-run and revert, the description covers all necessary context: operation, safety (dry-run), output, and revertibility via sibling tool. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be detailed further.

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% with good descriptions. The description adds context by tying the 'changes' parameter to the dry-run behavior and the 'confirm' parameter to execution. It enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 is a mutation tool to edit a guest's config (cores/memory/net/onboot/...), distinguishing it from related siblings like pve_guest_config_get and pve_guest_config_revert.

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 explains the dry-run default and how to execute with confirm=True, and references the revert tool. It lacks explicit comparison to other tools like pve_create_vm, but provides clear guidance on when to use it.

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