LXC Mount Points

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

Annotations already convey destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds only the cryptic phrase '(all elevated)' for removal, without explaining consequences, reversibility, or what specifically makes the operation elevated. This provides minimal additional transparency.

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 short and front-loaded, but it repeats 'mountpoint' unnecessarily and includes the ambiguous '(all elevated)' phrase that confuses rather than clarifies. It could be trimmed to a single unambiguous sentence.

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 destructive mutation tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description leaves important context unexplained: what happens during removal, whether adding requires both size and storage, and what side effects to expect. The large sibling list further highlights the lack of routing guidance.

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 already covers 83% of parameters with descriptionschers, including the action enumese. The description's action=add/remove mapping mostly restates the enum and does not clarify how required parameters like size or storage relate to each action. Baseline 3 applies given the high schema coverage.

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 explicitly names the resource, 'LXC mount points', and breaks out the two supported operations, add and remove, via the action parameter. The opening verb 'Manage' is generic, but the action mapping makes the tool's purpose specific and reasonably distinct from sibling tools like proxmox_vm_disk.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as proxmox_vm_disk, proxmox_storage_config, or proxmox_guest_disk_resize. It also does not mention prerequisites like the container existing or the storage being available; it only maps action values to operations.

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