pve_restore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses mutative/destructive potential, dry-run behavior, async execution, and the UPID return. It does not mention authorization or rate limits, but the provided details are substantial for a restore operation.

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 three concise, well-structured sentences. It front-loads the destructive warning and uses capitalization for key terms (PLAN, CREATES, OVERWRITES, UPID). 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 9 parameters and output schema present, the description covers critical behavioral aspects (dry-run, async, destructive) but omits prerequisites (e.g., backup existence, storage availability) and error conditions. It is adequate 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 11% (one parameter described). The description adds meaning for 'confirm' and 'pool' but leaves critical required parameters (vmid, archive, storage) and others (node, kind, force) unexplained. This is insufficient for the 9-parameter tool.

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 restores a guest from a backup archive, specifying it is a mutation and can be destructive if overwriting. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pve_backup, pve_create_vm, and pve_clone.

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 use of confirm=True for execution, plus the async nature returning a UPID. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like pve_create_vm or pve_clone, but the context strongly implies restoration scenarios.

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