Authentication Domains

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the schema's action enum: it omits side effects of delete, prerequisites for create/update, or parameter interdependencies. It neither contradicts nor enriches 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, front-loaded sentence: the verb and resource appear first, followed by a compact parenthetical action list. There is no filler or repetition; every token earns its place.

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 18-parameter, multi-action tool with no output schema, a one-line description is insufficient. It does not explain which parameters apply to which actions (e.g., create requires realm and type; LDAP needs server1 and base_dn), whether delete requires a digest, or what the tool returns. An agent would struggle to invoke non-trivial actions correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 94%, the schema already documents nearly all 18 parameters (e.g., 'Bind DN', 'Config digest', 'Primary server'). The description itself contains no parameter-specific information, so it adds no value over the schema; the baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific resource, 'authentication domains', and enumerates the exact operations (list, get, create, update, delete), which distinguishes it from sibling tools targeting nodes, users, or storage. However, the verb 'manage' is generic and the description does not clarify what an authentication domain is (e.g., Proxmox realms such as LDAP/AD), so it is clear but not maximally specific.

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 implies usage when an agent needs to perform CRUD operations on authentication domains, but it offers no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative tools. It does not mention that user/group management belongs to proxmox_user or proxmox_group, leaving the choice to inference from the resource name.

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