Resize a QEMU VM disk on a Proxmox node by providing node, VM ID, disk identifier, and target size. Confirmation flag must be set to true to apply the change.
Resize a QEMU VM disk. Requires confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| disk | Yes | ||
| node | Yes | ||
| size | Yes | ||
| vmid | Yes | ||
| confirm | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that confirm=true is required, which is a behavioral prerequisite, but it does not explain the destructive/irreversible nature of resizing a disk, potential risks (e.g., data loss if shrinking), or whether the operation is synchronous or async. For a mutation tool with no annotations, 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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and includes the critical confirm requirement. It is concise, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the size format, disk identifier conventions, or the confirm flag's role. An agent would likely need to guess or call pve_api_request to understand the parameters. The output schema exists but the input semantics are under-specified.
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 must compensate. It only mentions 'confirm=true' and does not explain the meaning or format of 'size' (e.g., '10G', '512M'), the 'disk' identifier (e.g., 'scsi0', 'virtio0'), or the 'node'/'vmid' parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's bare property names.
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 states a specific verb ('Resize') and resource ('QEMU VM disk'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pve_set_vm_config or pve_create_qemu_vm. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the action is unambiguous.
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 implies when to use it: when you need to resize a QEMU VM disk. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., pve_set_vm_config for other VM settings). The 'Requires confirm=true' is a usage prerequisite, which adds some guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.