pve_guest_power

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses the mutation nature, dry-run behavior, the returned plan (with blast radius and no-op detection), and async execution returning a UPID. This matches or exceeds what annotations would typically provide.

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 concise (2-3 sentences) with a clear structure: purpose, then behavior modes. It is front-loaded with the core action. Slightly wordy in the second part, but still efficient.

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?

Covers the two primary usage modes, the return types (plan or UPID), and the async nature. An output schema exists but is not shown; however, the description hints at its content. Missing details on error handling, permissions, or edge cases but adequate for an agent.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the confirm parameter's effect and the overall dry-vs-actual behavior, but does not elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 performs power operations (start/stop/reboot/shutdown) on a guest. It also introduces the dry-run mechanism, making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like pve_guest_status or pve_create_vm.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on using dry-run mode (confirm=False) for planning and confirm=True for execution. Mentions polling with pve_task_status post-execution. However, does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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