set_guest_config

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

Annotations are all false, providing no positive safety information (e.g., not read-only, not idempotent). The description adds little beyond the stated action; it does not disclose side effects, whether the VM needs to be stopped, failure modes, or if changes are immediately applied. The only additional hint is to read first, which is more of a usage guideline than a behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences plus an args list, front-loaded with the purpose. Every element earns its place, including the example settings which convey format and usage without fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and an output schema, so the description covers the core usage. It omits details about preconditions (e.g., running vs. stopped VM) and error behavior, but the guidance to read guest_config first and the example payload provide enough context for a typical agent to invoke the tool correctly. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It does so effectively: vmid is explained as 'Guest to reconfigure', and settings are described with concrete examples and the note that values are strings. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could be slightly more explicit about valid key 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 uses a specific verb 'Change' with the resource 'configuration keys on an existing VM or container', clearly distinguishing it from create_vm, guest_config, and lifecycle tools. It avoids ambiguity and directly states the scope of the operation.

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 gives clear context by instructing to 'Read guest_config first to see current values', which implies the complementary use of guest_config for reading before modifying. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for a typical workflow.

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