pve_guest_power

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the mutation nature, the dry-run default, the plan contents (change, guest live state, blast radius, risk, no-op detection), and the plan recording on both paths. This is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and how it behaves.

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 highly concise: two paragraphs with no extraneous information. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second paragraph explains the key behavior in a structured way.

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 explains the core dry-run and confirm behavior well, but it omits details about how to specify the guest (vmid, node, kind) and the allowed actions (though actions are listed in the purpose). Given that an output schema exists, the return values are not required, but parameter context is lacking for a complete understanding.

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 semantic value for the 'confirm' parameter by explaining its role in executing the plan. However, it does not describe the 'vmid', 'action', 'kind', or 'node' parameters beyond listing possible actions in the purpose. With only 17% schema coverage, the description should compensate more for the undocumented parameters.

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 opens with 'MUTATION: start/stop/reboot/shutdown a guest', clearly stating the action (mutation) and the resource (guest). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_guest_status (read-only) and pve_guest_migrate (different operation).

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 default dry-run behavior and the need for confirm=True to execute. It provides guidance on how to safely use the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other power-related tools like pdm_pve_lxc_power or pdm_pve_qemu_power.

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