Ceph MDS Daemons

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

The annotations already include destructiveHint=true, and the description adds 'delete' as an action, but that is also visible in the schema enum. The description provides no additional behavioral context such as irreversibility of deletion, required node context, or effects on the Ceph filesystem. It does not contradict 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 compact sentence with the resource and operations front-loaded. It contains no filler, though it could marginally be structured to call out per-action requirements.

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 destructive, multi-action tool with no output schema, the description is thin. It leaves the agent to infer that create/delete likely need a daemon name, what a list returns, and what destructive consequences delete carries beyond the annotation flag.

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 schema already documents 'name' and 'node' (67% coverage), and the description's parenthetical loosely mirrors the action enum. The description does not clarify when 'name' is required (e.g., for create/delete vs. list) or provide detail beyond the schema, but the schema plus enum are reasonably self-sufficient.

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 the specific resource (Ceph MDS daemons) and enumerates the supported operations (list, create, delete), so an agent can tell what the tool does. The resource name also distinguishes it from sibling Ceph tools like proxmox_ceph_osd and proxmox_ceph_mon, though the verb 'manage' is somewhat generic.

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?

Usage is implied through the resource name: use it when managing Ceph MDS daemons. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related Ceph siblings (e.g., proxmox_ceph_fs, proxmox_ceph_pool) or note any prerequisites or ordering constraints for create/delete operations.

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