pve_set_vm_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does state a confirmation requirement, which hints at a safeguard against unintentional changes, but it does not mention mutation consequences, whether changes apply to running VMs, permission needs, or reversibility. This is minimal disclosure for a config-modifying tool.

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, direct sentence with no filler. The key action is front-loaded, and the critical confirmation requirement is placed in the second clause. Every word contributes, making it highly concise and structurally efficient.

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 tool with 5 parameters, a nested config object, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. Although an output schema exists and can cover return values, the agent still lacks essential context about what config keys are accepted, how vm_type affects behavior, and what the confirmation flag actually protects against.

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 adds meaning only for 'confirm' by indicating it must be true. It provides no explanation of the central 'config' object, the 'vm_type' values, or the roles of 'node' and 'vmid'. With a nested free-form config object, this is a significant gap.

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 clear action and resource: 'Update VM/container config.' It is not a tautology and can be distinguished from retrieval tools like pve_get_vm_config. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other mutation tools or describe the scope of 'config', so it falls short of a full 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pve_create_qemu_vm, pve_create_lxc, or pve_get_vm_config. The only usage-related note, 'Requires confirm=true', is an invocation constraint, not a selection guideline. This leaves the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool's name alone.

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