pve_pool_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a mutation, is dry-run by default (with plan level 'additive, LOW'), requires confirm=True to execute, and is synchronous. This is comprehensive for behavioral expectations.

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. Every clause adds value: purpose, dry-run behavior, confirm requirement, synchronicity. No unnecessary 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 creation tool, the description covers core aspects: mutation, dry-run, confirm, sync. It does not discuss error handling (e.g., duplicate pool ID) but the output schema likely covers return values. Overall, it is adequately complete for the complexity.

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 low (25%). The description adds meaning for 'poolid' (implied by resource) and 'confirm' (explicitly explained), but does not mention the 'comment' parameter. The 'proximo_target' is already described in schema. The description partially compensates but leaves a gap.

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 verb 'create' and the resource 'resource pool', and specifies it creates an 'empty' pool. The 'MUTATION' prefix further clarifies the operation type. It is distinct from siblings like pve_pool_get or pve_pool_delete.

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 and confirm flag but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pve_pool_update. However, it provides clear context that this is for creating a pool, and the usage flow is implied.

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