pve_node_migrateall

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly labels the operation as a high-risk mutation, warns that it is not auto-reversible, and explains the reversal limitation. It also mentions the potential return of a UPID. This provides good transparency beyond the basic mutation nature.

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 very concise: a few lines that front-load the purpose, risk, and key parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan.

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 high-risk mutation tool, the description covers purpose and risk well but lacks details on filtering via 'vms' and parallelism via 'maxworkers'. The presence of an output schema somewhat mitigates the lack of return value details, but overall completeness could be higher.

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 only 17% (only proximo_target has a description). The description adds meaning for 'target' (required) and 'confirm' (execution flag), but does not explain other parameters like 'vms' (for filtering) or 'maxworkers'. Given low schema coverage, more parameter details in the description were needed.

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 action ('migrate all (or filtered) guests'), the source node (implied by endpoint), and the target node. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pve_guest_migrate by specifying 'all' guests.

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 usage context by labeling it as a mutation and warning about high risk and non-reversibility. It specifies required parameters (target) and execution flag (confirm). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool compared to alternatives.

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