pve_template_convert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation as a mutation and irreversible, explains the dry-run behavior via the 'confirm' parameter, and notes that execution is async. It could mention the effect on the guest (e.g., becoming a template) but the key behaviors are covered.

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 two sentences long, well-structured, and front-loaded with critical information. Every sentence is meaningful, with no redundancy or fluff.

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's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the operation, safety mechanisms, parameter roles, and limitations. The async execution detail and restrictions are well conveyed.

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 significant context: it explains the 'confirm' parameter's role in dry-run vs execution, the restriction on 'kind' (lxc refused), and the purpose of 'proximo_target'. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 'convert a guest into a template' and distinguishes it from LXC template conversion by noting that the endpoint is QEMU-only and LXC uses a separate endpoint. This differentiates the tool from siblings like pve_clone or pve_create_vm.

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 when to use the tool (for QEMU guests) and mentions the dry-run default for safety. It implies that for LXC guests, a different tool should be used, but does not explicitly name an alternative. The guideline is clear but could be more explicit about sibling tools.

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