Access Control Lists

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description doesn't explain what 'update' does beyond the name. It doesn't disclose that update may delete entries (via the 'delete' parameter), that changes may propagate to sub-paths, or that a digest may be required for concurrency control. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 a single short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise and easy to parse, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and destructive annotations, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain the difference between get and update semantics, how filters work, or what happens on update (e.g., delete flag, propagate). An agent would need to inspect the schema and guess at behavior.

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 91%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the action enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden, but the description doesn't clarify how parameters combine (e.g., filters vs. update fields).

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 'Manage ACL entries (get, update)' states a clear verb and resource, and names the two actions. However, it doesn't distinguish this from other ACL-related sibling tools like proxmox_cluster_firewall or proxmox_role, and the title 'Access Control Lists' is generic. It is clear enough but lacks differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that 'get' retrieves ACLs and 'update' modifies them, nor does it explain when to use path/roleid/userid filters. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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