pve_replication_update

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

Discloses key behaviors: it is a mutation, dry-run safety, config-only impact, and no immediate disruption to active replications. Lacks detail on potential side effects (e.g., whether config change applies immediately) and permission requirements. Without annotations, more depth would be beneficial.

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 very concise: three sentences that efficiently convey purpose, safe usage, and behavioral impact. Information is front-loaded with 'MUTATION:' label, and every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks prerequisite context (e.g., the replication job must exist) and does not explain most parameters. Given the 7-parameter schema with low coverage, the description is not sufficiently complete for reliable usage.

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 (14%); only 'confirm' is mentioned in the description ('confirm=True to execute'). Other parameters (rate, comment, disable, schedule) are not explained. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage 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 'update a PVE replication job', using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like pve_replication_create and pve_replication_delete, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit usage instructions: dry-run by default, confirm=True to execute. It also clarifies that updates are config-only and do not disrupt in-flight replication. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool (e.g., if a job does not exist) or alternatives.

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