pve_template_convert

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It highlights that the operation is a mutation, irreversible, and one-way, and that execution requires confirmation. This covers key safety aspects, but it omits details like required permissions, disk state changes, or effects on running services. The transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences with no filler. Key information (irreversibility, dry-run, confirm flag) is front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 (irreversible mutation, 5 parameters, low schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the required parameter 'vmid', the optional 'kind' or 'node', or the behavior of 'proximo_target' (only documented in schema for one param). The output schema exists but the description lacks context on typical use cases or side effects, making it insufficient for an agent to reliably use the tool.

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?

The description only adds meaning for the 'confirm' parameter (linking it to execution). Other parameters (vmid, kind, node, proximo_target) are not explained. With only 20% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but largely fails to do so, leaving most parameters underdocumented.

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 the action: 'convert a guest into a template — effectively one-way.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pve_clone (which creates a full copy) or pve_snapshot_create (which saves state). The 'one-way' emphasis further clarifies the irreversible nature.

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 default dry-run behavior and the need for 'confirm=True' to execute, providing context on safe usage. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., pve_clone for copying) or when not to use it (e.g., if a guest is needed as a running VM).

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