Ceph Pools

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

The annotations already carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), so the description's burden is to add context such as that deleting a pool destroys stored data, that operations require privileged/root access, or which actions mutate state. It adds none of this; the description only lists operations already present in the action enum. It does not contradict the annotations, but it repeats structured data instead of enriching it.

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 operation scope front-loaded. No wasted words. It loses a point only because it is so terse that it borders on merely echoing the schema rather than adding information.

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 an 8-parameter, 4-action mutation tool with no output schema, the description should compensate by mapping parameters to actions (e.g., pg_num/size/min_size apply to create/update, name is required for update/delete) and hinting at return values. It does neither. An agent selecting this tool cannot tell which of the 8 parameters are relevant for the action they intend, and there is no indication of what the response contains.

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 88% (above the 80% threshold), so the schema documents name, node, size, pg_num, min_size, crush_rule, and pg_autoscale_mode well. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond this, so the baseline 3 applies. A small gap: the action parameter lacks a schema description but is self-explanatory via the enum, which the description parenthetical reinforces.

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 states a verb+resource ('Manage Ceph pools') and enumerates the four operations (list, create, update, delete), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like proxmox_ceph_osd, proxmox_ceph_mon, and proxmox_ceph. However, the parenthetical merely repeats what the action enum already declares, and 'Manage' is a generic verb that relies on the operation list for specificity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisite conditions (e.g., Ceph must be configured on the node, or a pool must already exist before update/delete), and no exclusions or warnings. The description leaves an agent to infer that action='delete' is destructive and that 'list' requires no pool name, which the schema does not make explicit.

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