create_vm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a new VM' and mentions optional cloud-init configuration, but does not explain side effects, permission requirements, vmid uniqueness, whether the VM auto-starts, or what the operation returns. For a mutating tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single 11-word sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word earns its place: 'Create', 'new VM', 'Proxmox', and the differentiator 'optional cloud-init configuration'. There is zero wasted text and the structure is ideal for quick scanning.

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?

For a 35-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, an 11-word description is severely incomplete. It does not cover operation semantics, asynchronous behavior, return values, prerequisites, or how it differs from related creation tools. The agent must rely entirely on the schema for context, which is insufficient for safe 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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond hinting that cloud-init configuration is optional, which is already evident from the schema. It neither improves nor harms parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb 'Create' and a clear resource 'new VM on Proxmox', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_container and other VM management operations. The optional cloud-init mention adds relevant feature context without confusing the primary purpose.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: when a new VM is needed on Proxmox, with optional cloud-init support. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as create_container, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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