proxmox_apt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that update/upgrade are elevated operations, but lacks details on side effects, return values, or error behavior. The description is minimally transparent beyond the elevated hint.

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, using a compact notation to convey key behavioral distinctions. Every word carries weight, and the main purpose is front-loaded. No extraneous text.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain return values but does not. It only says 'list versions' for versions but omits format. For update/upgrade, it gives no indication of success/failure output. This is a significant gap for a 3-parameter tool.

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 input schema describes node and package but not action. The description compensates by explaining each action (update/upgrade are package ops, versions lists versions) and adds the elevated context. This adds meaningful value beyond the schema's enums.

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 manages APT packages and distinguishes three specific actions (update, upgrade, versions) with behavioral hints (elevated). No sibling tool overlaps, so purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly notes that update and upgrade require elevated privileges, which guides the agent on prerequisites. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling list shows no competing APT tool.

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