Node Network Interfaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'all elevated' adds a small amount of context about required privileges. However, the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as the fact that 'apply' likely activates pending network changes and could disrupt connectivity, or that 'delete' is destructive. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not add significant behavioral depth beyond them.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the resource and action set. It is efficient and avoids redundancy with the schema. The 'all elevated' note is brief but useful. It could arguably include more behavioral context, but as a concise statement it earns a 4.

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 (25 parameters, multiple actions, destructive potential), the description is minimal. The schema covers parameter semantics well, and the action enum is present, but the description does not explain the workflow (e.g., create/update then apply, or revert for rollback). With no output schema and no explicit usage guidance, an agent may not fully understand the operational sequence. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 96%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the action list, which is already in the schema enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the heavy lifting and the description does not need to compensate.

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 ('node network interfaces'), and enumerates the four actions (create|update|delete|apply). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by targeting node network interfaces specifically, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative. The action enum in the schema reinforces the purpose, so the description is clear but relies partly on the schema for full differentiation.

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 implies usage by listing actions and noting 'all elevated', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like proxmox_node_config or proxmox_guest_network. It provides no exclusions or conditions for choosing this tool. The 'all elevated' note gives some context about privilege requirements, but the guidance is mostly implicit.

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