ACME Accounts

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds the important auth requirement that create/update/delete operations need elevated access. The destructive and read-only hints are already carried by annotations, so the description's added elevation note is useful supplemental behavioral context.

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 compact sentence with no filler. The action routing is front-loaded, and the elevated note is attached directly to the write actions.

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 description plus schema is adequate for basic invocation, especially listing accounts. However, it does not clarify which parameters are required or meaningful for each action, such as needing name for get/update/delete or contact for create, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping the action enum values to query vs. management behavior and by correcting the schema's action description, which says 'List all ACME accounts' even though the enum also includes create/update/delete.

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 names a specific resource, 'ACME accounts', and distinguishes query actions (list/get) from management actions (create/update/delete). It is clear enough to be separated from related ACME tools by resource and action type, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 explicit internal usage guidance: use list/get for queries and create/update/delete for management, with writes requiring elevated privileges. It does not explain when to prefer sibling tools like proxmox_acme_info or proxmox_acme_cert, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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