SDN Zones

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description merely says 'Manage' without elaborating on side effects, permission requirements, or what happens during destructive actions like delete. No contradiction exists, but no value is added.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the resource and actions. It is concise without being under-specified, though it could benefit from a bit more structure to separate usage guidance from purpose. Overall, it is appropriately sized.

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?

The tool is a multi-action management tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, yet the description gives no guidance on how actions differ or which parameters apply to which action. It also lacks usage context. While the schema covers parameter details, the description fails to explain action-specific behavior or when to use each action, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 high (92%), so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not mention any parameters or add meaning beyond what the schema provides. According to the calibration, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 resource (SDN zones) and enumerates the supported actions (list, get, create, update, delete). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxmox_sdn_vnet or proxmox_sdn_subnet, making the tool's scope immediately apparent.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would lead an agent to choose this tool over other SDN-related tools. The only hint is the resource name, which is implicit rather than explicit.

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