pve_pool_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the mutation nature, dry-run mechanics, synchronous behavior, and the refused edge case. It could further detail the impact on ACL coverage beyond noting membership re-scopes, but overall provides good transparency.

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—three sentences—yet conveys all essential information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and structured logically: purpose, dry-run behavior, execution requirement, and an edge case caveat. 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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, low schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (so return values are not needed), the description covers the critical workflows: adding/removing members, dry-run/confirmation, and the ambiguous-delete refusal. It could elaborate slightly on the nature of the output (e.g., brief note on what the plan contains), but is mostly complete.

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 (17%), so the description must compensate. It explains the key parameters (delete, confirm, vms, storage) in context, especially the meaning of delete and the dry-run/confirm flow. The vms and storage parameters are left without format details, but the description adds meaningful usage context.

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 modifies pool membership by adding or removing members. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_pool_create and pve_pool_delete by focusing on membership changes rather than pool creation or deletion.

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 that the tool operates in dry-run mode by default and requires confirm=True to execute, also noting that delete=True with no vms/storage is refused. This provides clear guidance on when and how to use the tool, though it does not explicitly exclude scenarios where alternatives might be better.

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