proxmox_guest_network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only notes elevated permissions but fails to disclose idempotency, side effects, or failure behavior for add/update/remove operations.

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 sentence that gets straight to the point, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing actions separately) without losing conciseness.

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 tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, error handling, or how parameters combine across different actions and guest types.

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 92%, so most parameters are already explained. The description adds minimal value beyond summarizing action and type, and mentions permissions, but does not elaborate on parameter interactions or constraints.

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 states the tool manages guest network interfaces, specifies actions (add/update/remove) and guest types (vm/lxc), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxmox_guest_config or proxmox_node_network_iface.

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 mentions that elevated permissions are required but does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare to alternatives like proxmox_node_network_iface for node-level interfaces.

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