manage_proxmox_vm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions actions but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify permissions required, whether actions are destructive or reversible, expected response times, or error conditions. For a tool with multiple state-changing operations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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—a single sentence listing all actions without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently enumerates capabilities. Every word serves a clear purpose with zero waste.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'manage' entails beyond listing actions, doesn't cover permissions or side effects, and provides no information about return values or error handling. Given the complexity of VM/container management, more context is needed.

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 100%, providing good documentation of all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it implies the 'action' parameter but doesn't elaborate on semantics. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Manage a VM or container' with specific actions listed (start, stop, shutdown, reboot, reset, suspend, resume). It distinguishes from siblings like 'control_vm' by specifying both VMs and containers, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'deploy_vm' or 'remove_vm' which might have overlapping scopes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'control_vm', 'deploy_vm', and 'remove_vm' exist without clear differentiation. The description lists actions but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or when to choose this over other tools.

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