proxmox_node_network_iface

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

The description mentions that all actions are 'elevated', hinting at required permissions, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as side effects, whether changes are applied immediately, or potential impacts on the system. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but falls short.

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, which is concise, but it is too brief to fully inform the agent. It lacks structure and important details, making it barely adequate.

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 complexity of the tool (25 parameters, 4 actions, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or how the actions (especially 'apply') affect the system. More context is needed for effective use.

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 96% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds minimal value by stating 'all elevated' which is not in the schema. For parameters, the description does not clarify meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 network interfaces and lists the actions (create, update, delete, apply). This distinguishes it from sibling tools related to other node configurations, as it's the only one focusing on network interfaces. However, the verb 'Manage' is somewhat generic.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or limitations. The description does not mention when it is appropriate to use this tool over other node management tools.

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