SDN Controllers

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description is consistent with them since it includes create/update/delete. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action list already present in the schema—no side effects, no explanation of what gets modified or destroyed, and no auth or precondition details.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or off-topic content. The parenthetical action list is somewhat redundant with the schema's action enum, but it is compact and helps an agent quickly understand the tool's scope.

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 five actions and eleven parameters, the description is thin: it does not indicate which parameters apply to which action, what the return values are, or what side effects each operation has. The rich schema coverage and the destructive/idempotent annotations partially compensate, making the tool minimally usable but not fully specified.

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 91%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter. The description does not mention or elaborate on any parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond what the input schema provides. The 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 uses 'Manage SDN controllers' and explicitly enumerates all five operations (list, get, create, update, delete), so an agent can tell it is a CRUD endpoint for the controller resource. The resource noun 'SDN controllers' distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxmox_sdn_subnet, proxmox_sdn_vnet, and proxmox_sdn_zone. The verb 'Manage' is generic, but the action list removes most ambiguity.

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?

There is no statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions, prerequisites, or action-selection guidance. The only usage signal is the resource name itself, which is implied rather than explicitly stated as a rule.

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