SDN Virtual Networks

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 doesn't need to restate those. However, it adds no additional behavioral context—no mention of side effects (e.g., deleting a vnet may affect subnets), concurrency via digest, or authorization needs. It simply lists actions already present in the schema enum, providing zero added value beyond annotations.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the resource type and enumerates actions efficiently. While the action list is redundant with the schema, the brevity keeps it scannable. It could be slightly longer to add context, but as written it's appropriately sized for a CRUD tool.

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?

Despite having 14 parameters and 5 actions, the description provides no operational context. It doesn't explain which parameters are relevant per action, that 'action' is required, or that some parameters are mutually exclusive. There is no output schema, so the description should compensate by describing expected behavior, but it doesn't. The tool is far from self-contained for an agent to use correctly.

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 93%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. For example, it doesn't clarify that 'vnet' and 'zone' are required for create/update, or that 'delete' is a special parameter. Since coverage is high, this is acceptable but not enhanced.

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 type ('SDN virtual networks') and lists the CRUD actions explicitly, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxmox_sdn_subnet and proxmox_sdn_zone. It's specific enough for an agent to know what it operates on, though it could mention the resource is part of Proxmox's SDN stack.

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 the many sibling SDN tools (subnet, zone, controller). It doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., requiring a zone) or indicate that 'list'/'get' are read-only while others mutate. The agent must infer usage from the schema alone.

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