proxmox_acl

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides almost no behavioral details. It omits critical traits such as whether 'update' is idempotent, what happens on get, if changes require special permissions, or the effect of parameters like 'delete' and 'propagate'. This leaves agents guessing.

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?

While extremely short, the description is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It front-loads purpose but lacks depth, forcing agents to infer behavior from the schema alone. A better balance would include a sentence clarifying key behavioral aspects.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values for 'get', how updates modify ACLs, or how parameters interact. Agents lack sufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 high (91%), and each parameter already has a brief description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond listing the two actions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Manage ACL entries (get, update)', clearly identifying the resource and two main actions. It distinguishes from sibling tools which cover different Proxmox features (e.g., backups, VMs), so its scope is clear. However, it could be more specific about what 'manage' entails (e.g., create, delete, list).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools cover different domains, there is no mention of conditions under which proxmox_acl should be chosen or avoided. Missing when-not-to-use advice.

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