pve_vm_power

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses side effects (changes guest power state), waiting behavior (up to PVE_MCP_TASK_WAIT seconds), return format (JSON with vmid/node/type/action and task details), and the source endpoint. It also explains the difference between shutdown (clean) and stop (hard power-off), which is critical behavioral information.

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 appropriately sized, front-loaded with the main purpose, and structured into logical sections. Every sentence adds necessary value (purpose, applicability, actions, side effects, return format, source). No fluff or redundancy.

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 power state change tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is complete: it covers input semantics, behavior (side effects, waiting), output format, and even source endpoint. Error cases are implied via 'failure + log_tail'. The tool's complexity is adequately addressed.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains that node is optional and auto-resolved, vmid identifies the guest, action is an enum with specific meanings (including QEMU-only restrictions), and timeout applies to shutdown/reboot. This adds significant semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 explicitly states 'Change the power state of a VM or container' and specifies the applicable resource types (QEMU VMs and LXC containers) and the actions (start, shutdown, stop, reboot, suspend, resume). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like pve_vm_status or pve_vm_config.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each action: prefer shutdown over stop, suspend/resume are QEMU-only, containers use shutdown/stop/start. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools but given the sibling set, this tool is the only one for power state changes. The guidelines are clear and actionable.

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