Node Configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the useful context that set_* actions require elevated privileges, but it does not disclose what the destructive operations change, whether changes are reversible, or what the effects of set_hosts/set_dns are beyond the action names.

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 line with the core scope front-loaded and the actions listed in a terse, parseable format. It avoids redundancy, though the packed pipe-separated syntax is somewhat cryptic and could be clearer with brief action explanations.

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?

This is a multi-action tool with 13 parameters, no output schema, and a destructive annotation, so the description carries a heavy burden. It does not map action to required parameters, does not describe return values or expected side effects, and leaves the agent guessing how set_hosts and set_dns use the available fields.

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 92%, so the input schema already documents most parameters well. The description's action enum mostly duplicates the schema's action enum, but the '(elevated)' label adds a permission nuance not present in the schema. It does not explain which parameters apply to which action, which is a meaningful gap for a 13-parameter tool.

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 the resource (node configuration) and lists the concrete actions: get_time, set_time, set_dns, get_hosts, set_hosts. This is specific enough to distinguish from guest or cluster tools, though the opening phrase 'Manage node configuration' is generic and each action is not individually explained.

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 the tool is relevant — for node time, DNS, and hosts configuration — and the '(elevated)' markers hint at privilege requirements. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to use this tool vs alternatives like proxmox_node_info or proxmox_node, nor does it exclude any situations.

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