pve_node_time_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is a mutation (MUTATION), has risk level RISK_LOW, captures the current timezone before planning, allows dry-run (returns PLAN) and real execution (returns success status), and explains revert strategy. This level of detail far exceeds typical descriptions and ensures the agent understands all implications.

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 extremely concise, using only a few sentences to convey purpose, risk, capture, revert, and dry-run behavior. It is well-structured with clear sections (MUTATION, RISK, CAPTURE, Revert, Dry-run) and front-loaded with the key verb. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and a relatively simple task, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how it works (capture, revert, dry-run), failure cases (unreadable leads to complete=False), return values for both modes, and even points to a sibling tool for reading. This completeness ensures the agent can use the tool correctly without additional context.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'confirm' parameter explains dry-run vs execution). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. While the description gives context about the overall workflow, it does not enhance understanding of individual parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the specific action: 'set the timezone on a PVE node.' It uses a clear verb ('set') and resource ('timezone'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool pve_node_time_get, which is explicitly mentioned as an alternative for reading. This makes the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 explicit guidance: it explains when to use the tool (to set timezone), mentions a prerequisite (read current timezone via pve_node_time_get), discusses failure mode (if unreadable → complete=False), and explains the dry-run vs. execution behavior via the 'confirm' parameter. It also notes how to revert (re-apply captured timezone). This is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity.

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