pve_pool_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutation nature, synchronous execution, absence of UPID, dry-run default, and the refusal condition for ambiguous delete. However, it does not mention potential error cases beyond the refused deletion or the output format (though an output schema exists).

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, using four sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide key behavioral details. 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 an output schema and 6 parameters, the description covers the mutation behavior, dry-run mechanism, execution control, a rejection case, and an alternative tool. It is complete for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the interplay of delete, confirm, vms, and storage parameters beyond the schema descriptions, such as the dry-run behavior and the requirement to provide members when delete=True.

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 it is a mutation to add or remove pool members, distinguishing the two modes via the delete flag. It also explicitly references the sibling tool pve_pool_delete for removing the pool itself, providing clear differentiation.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool (add/remove members) and when not to (use pve_pool_delete for removing the pool). It details the dry-run default, the confirm flag for execution, and the rejection of delete=True without members, giving comprehensive guidance.

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