HA Groups

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

Annotations already convey destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful context by marking create, update, and delete as 'elevated', indicating privileged operations. It does not describe side effects or failure behavior beyond that.

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 that front-loads 'Manage HA groups' and then enumerates all actions with their meanings. There is no filler or redundant explanation.

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?

The action-based breakdown is helpful, but the description lacks action-specific parameter requirements, such as which fields are needed for create or update. Since there is no output schema, return behavior is also left unspecified. Still, the schema and annotations cover a substantial amount of context.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 89%, the description adds meaning to the required 'action' parameter by explaining what each action does. This goes beyond the bare enum in the schema and helps an agent select the correct action value.

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 resource ('HA groups') and provides action-specific verbs: list, get, create, update, delete. This makes the tool's function understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate HA groups from the closely related sibling proxmox_ha_resource.

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 action list implies usage, but there is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than alternatives like proxmox_ha_resource or other cluster tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria are provided.

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