Ceph OSDs

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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description merely restates the action enum without adding context about what deletion destroys, whether create overwrites existing device data, or what permissions are needed. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also adds no behavioral transparency beyond them.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource named and operations compactly listed. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it is terse enough that it sacrifices useful context.

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 9-parameter tool with destructive create/delete operations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not explain action-specific requirements, e.g., that create needs a device and delete needs an existing OSD ID, nor does it describe side effects. The schema helps with parameter names but cannot convey the operational context.

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 89%, so parameter meaning is mostly carried by the schema itself (e.g., dev path, optional dbdev/waldev, encryption flag). The description adds no parameter-level detail, but with this high coverage it does not need to; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 OSDs) and enumerates the supported actions (list, create, delete), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling Ceph tools like proxmox_ceph_pool, proxmox_ceph_mon, and proxmox_ceph_fs. It is not a 5 because 'Manage' is generic, but the action list compensates.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions for create versus delete. An agent cannot tell from the description when this tool is the right choice compared to other proxmox_ceph_* siblings.

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