pve_start_vm

Does 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 the confirm requirement, which is a behavioral constraint, but it does not explain what happens without confirm (e.g., error), whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, or any side effects. The disclosure is minimal and leaves key behaviors opaque.

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 extremely concise, with only two short sentences, and it front-loads the core action. However, it sacrifices informational richness for brevity; still, it earns points for not wasting words and placing the critical requirement right after the action.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits any guidance on the required node and vmid parameters, the meaning of vm_type, and the expected outcome or return value (though an output schema exists, which mitigates that gap). The agent is left to infer too much from the schema alone.

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 for the confirm parameter by stating it must be true, but it does not clarify the role of node, vmid, or vm_type. Since the schema has no descriptions, the description leaves three of four parameters unexplained, failing to compensate for the coverage 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 verb and resource ('Start a VM/container') and is distinct from sibling operations like shutdown, stop, reboot, and resume. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings, so it lacks the specificity of a full contrast.

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?

It provides a critical usage condition ('Requires confirm=true'), which guides the agent on a required parameter. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., resume vs start) or any prerequisites beyond the confirm flag. Usage context is only implied.

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