pve_notification_endpoint_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies the operation as a mutation and explains the dry-run/confirm mechanism. However, it does not cover permission requirements, failure conditions (e.g., if the endpoint does not exist), or what the output schema contains.

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 3 sentences to convey the core purpose, the dry-run vs confirm mode, and the options parameter. It is front-loaded with the mutation keyword and wastes no 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?

Given the low schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides essential operational context but misses details about error handling, required permissions, and the return value (though output schema exists). It is adequate for an agent to use but not fully comprehensive.

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 only 17%, so the description must add meaning. It explains ep_type values and that options follows the same shape as create, but it does not describe other parameters like name, comment, or confirm in any detail beyond what the schema already 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 'update a PVE notification endpoint' and lists the valid ep_type values, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pve_notification_endpoint_create by being explicitly an update 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 dry-run default behavior and that confirm=True is required to execute, providing clear instructions on how to use the tool safely. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for creating new endpoints) or mention prerequisites like ensuring the endpoint exists.

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