Storage Configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds no new behavioral context beyond what the schema's action enum already shows. It does not explain what deletion destroys, whether changes require special permissions, or how actions affect cluster storage availability.

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, and the action list is front-loaded in parentheses. It is appropriately compact, though it sacrifices operational detail for brevity.

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?

For a 29-parameter, multi-action, destructive tool with no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain action-specific parameter requirements, how create/update/delete differ, or what a successful response looks like, leaving significant gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it 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 97%, so the schema already documents nearly all 29 parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not map specific parameters to specific actions, but the high schema coverage keeps this at the baseline of 3.

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 identifies the resource as 'storage configurations' and enumerates the supported operations: list, get, create, update, delete, cluster_usage. This makes the tool's scope reasonably clear and distinguishes it from siblings like proxmox_storage_content, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no action-specific selection criteria. The action list implies possible uses, but the description never states when each action is appropriate or when another tool should be chosen.

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