pve_storage_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses mutation, dry-run, confirm, and a specific side effect (guests lose disk access with disable=True). This is strong, though auth and undo are omitted.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose. Could benefit from separating dry-run and confirm, but overall efficient.

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 and being a mutation, the description lacks details on most parameters (e.g., delete, content, shared). For a tool with 8 params and many siblings, this is incomplete for correct agent invocation.

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 13%. The description adds meaning for disable and confirm, but leaves 6 undocumented parameters (nodes, delete, shared, content, storage) unexplained, failing to compensate for low coverage.

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 updates a storage definition, which distinguishes it from create/delete siblings. However, it doesn't specify which properties can be updated, leaving some ambiguity.

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 dry-run by default and confirm=True to execute, providing clear usage context and safety guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the pattern is straightforward.

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