HA Resources

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's '(elevated)' markers add a small amount of context about privilege requirements. The description does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether operations are idempotent (though idempotentHint=true is in annotations), what gets destroyed, or any side effects beyond the action names. No contradiction with 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 compact and front-loads the resource domain, then enumerates actions in a scannable pipe-separated format. Every clause earns its place, though the repeated 'action=' prefix is slightly redundant.

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 multi-action tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description gives only a terse action list. It doesn't explain which parameters apply to which action, what the response looks like, or how the 'delete' parameter relates to the delete action. The annotations cover safety (destructive, idempotent), but the action-to-parameter mapping is left to the agent to infer.

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 91%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the action names; for example, it doesn't explain how 'sid', 'group', or 'state' interact with each action. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries 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 states a clear verb ('Manage') and resource ('HA resources'), and enumerates six distinct actions (list, get, status, create, update, delete) with brief scopes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like proxmox_ha_group by naming the HA resource domain, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with that sibling.

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 when each sub-operation is appropriate (e.g., 'list resources' vs 'get resource details'), and the '(elevated)' markers signal that create/update/delete require higher privileges. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over proxmox_ha_group or other HA-related siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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