pve_node_time_set

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It states it's a mutation, includes risk level ('RISK_LOW'), capture behavior, revert mechanism, and smoke-confirm status. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but given the tool's simplicity, it is adequately transparent.

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 and well-structured, with key information front-loaded (action, risk). Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more compact. 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 simple mutation tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains how to execute (confirm=true) and how to revert. No further details on output are needed given the output schema presence.

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 low (25%), so the description should compensate. It adds meaning to 'confirm' (must be true to execute) and mentions 'timezone' implicitly. However, it does not explain 'node' or 'proximo_target' beyond the schema. Overall, partial added value.

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's purpose: 'set the timezone on a PVE node.' The verb 'set' and resource 'timezone' are explicit. The 'MUTATION' prefix further clarifies the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_node_time_get.

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 revert strategy and mentions the confirm parameter, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like pve_node_time_get. Usage context is implied but not directly stated.

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