proxmox_node_config

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

Without annotations, the description partially discloses behavioral traits by indicating elevated actions, but it doesn't mention side effects, output variability, or the destructive potential of the delete parameter.

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 very concise (two short lines) but lacks structured formatting like bullet points; it could be slightly more organized without adding length.

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 (5 actions, 13 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It omits return value behavior, error conditions, and parameter-action relationships, leaving the agent reliant on schema descriptions alone.

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 coverage is high (92%), so baseline is 3. However, the description adds minimal value beyond listing actions; it fails to map parameters to specific actions or explain how parameters are used together.

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 node configuration and lists specific actions (get_time, set_time, etc.), distinguishing it from general node tools like proxmox_node_info.

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 notes elevated permissions for some actions but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like proxmox_node or proxmox_node_info.

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