set_guest_resources

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool reconfigures the guest and details behavioral differences between LXC and QEMU. However, it does not mention potential side effects, reversibility, or permission requirements.

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 concise and well-structured, using bullet points for parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary action and then details.

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 no output schema, the description covers parameter semantics and behavioral context well. However, it lacks information about the return value or error handling, which would make it more complete for a mutation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds all parameter meaning. It explains cores as 'LXC = total cores; QEMU = cores per socket' and memory_mb as 'RAM in MB', which goes far beyond the schema's titles. It also clarifies that at least one must be provided.

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 tool changes CPU cores and/or memory of a guest. It uses specific verbs ('change', 'reconfigures') and resource ('guest's CPU cores and/or memory'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like guest_config which reads current values.

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 explicitly advises to read current values first with guest_config, provides context for when changes take effect (live for LXC, reboot for QEMU), and states that at least one of cores/memory must be provided. This gives clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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