LXC Command Execution

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the SSH transport and elevated-permission requirement. It does not contradict annotations, though it doesn't expand on potential side effects inside the container.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the critical prerequisite in parentheses.

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 4-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient: it states the target, method, and prerequisite. The main omission is return/exit behavior, which is not covered by an output schema, but this is a minor gap for an exec tool.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents node, vmid, command, and timeout fully. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Execute'), a specific resource ('inside an LXC container'), and the exact mechanism ('SSH + pct exec'). This clearly distinguishes it from VM-focused tools like proxmox_agent_exec or proxmox_guest_*.

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?

It names an important prerequisite ('requires elevated + PROXMOX_SSH_ENABLED=true'), which gives context for when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives such as proxmox_agent_exec or when not to use it.

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