pve_guest_config_set

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It successfully discloses mutation behavior, dry-run planning, execution requirement (confirm=True), prior config capture for revert, and synchronous execution. No contradictions.

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 a single paragraph with front-loaded purpose and mutation label. It is concise, covering purpose, behavior, and key details without extraneous 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?

The description is mostly complete given the complexity, but could mention required parameters (vmid, changes) or optional ones like node/kind. The output schema exists, so return value explanation is not needed. The nested object (changes) is partly described with examples, which is adequate.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 17%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains the changes parameter can include cores, memory, net, onboot, etc., and describes confirm's role in executing the plan. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the tool edits a guest's config (cores/memory/net/onboot/...), marking itself as a mutation. It distinguishes from siblings like pve_guest_config_get (read) and pve_guest_config_revert (revert) by explicitly mentioning revertibility.

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 need for confirm=True to execute, which guides safe usage. It mentions revert capability via a sibling tool, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others (though it's implied).

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