Cluster Configuration

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds only 'elevated' for the join action. It does not explain that join modifies cluster state, what side effects may occur, or whether elevated refers to permissions or credentials.

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 pipe-separated action mapping is compact and front-loaded, with minimal filler. Slight repetition of 'config' is harmless, but the format could be more structured to distinguish read-only actions from the join mutation.

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?

With five actions, six parameters, and no output schema, the description leaves critical invocation details unspecified: per-action required parameters, return shapes, and side-effect expectations. An agent cannot reliably construct valid calls for join or get_node without additional external knowledge.

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 high at 83%, so the parameter burden is mostly handled by the schema. The description paraphrases the action enum values but does not clarify which parameters are expected or required for each action, such as hostname/password/fingerprint for join.

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 identifies the tool as managing cluster config and enumerates five distinct actions with their meanings. It is specific enough to separate config operations from broader cluster lifecycle tools, though it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like proxmox_cluster.

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 instead of alternatives such as proxmox_cluster or proxmox_cluster_firewall. It implies usage through the action list but lacks explicit when/when-not direction or preconditions.

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