Guest Network Interfaces

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that elevated permissions are required, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects of remove (e.g., network disruption) or any other operational consequences. With annotations covering the destructive nature, the description provides a modest addition but does not fully explain the tool's behavior beyond the permission note.

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 packs the essential information: purpose, actions, types, and a permission caveat. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Manage' and the resource, then details. There is no redundant wording, and it efficiently communicates the core details in a compact format.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, 5 required, no output schema) and that it is a mutation tool with destructive capabilities, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain which parameters apply to which action (e.g., that ip/gw are needed for lxc add, or that model/macaddr are for vm) nor does it describe the expected response or error behavior. An agent would need to rely heavily on the schema, which is rich, but the description alone leaves significant gaps for safe invocation.

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?

The schema has high coverage (92%), describing most parameters with clear 'LXC only' or 'VM only' constraints. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond restating the action and type enums that are already in the schema. The one parameter without a schema description (action) is covered by the description, but overall the description does not enrich parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool manages guest network interfaces and enumerates the supported actions (add/update/remove) and guest types (vm/lxc). This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from generic guest config tools, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative. The purpose is unambiguous and easily understood.

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 by naming the actions and types, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like proxmox_guest_config_update or proxmox_guest_firewall_rule. It lacks a 'use this when...' or 'use X instead when...' statement. The context is clear enough that an agent could infer the appropriate use case, but the absence of explicit routing to sibling tools leaves some ambiguity.

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