proxmox_storage_config

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

The description is minimal and does not disclose behavioral traits beyond listing actions. It lacks information about side effects (e.g., creating/deleting storage), required permissions, or security considerations (e.g., password handling). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to add meaningful behavioral context.

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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the purpose and action list. However, it may be too sparse for a complex tool with 29 parameters, but given the schema's high coverage, it remains efficient.

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 tool's complexity (29 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the action parameter controls behavior, what the required parameters are per action, or what the return values look like. This leaves agents with insufficient context to use the tool 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 most parameters. The description itself adds no extra semantics beyond listing action types. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description neither harms nor significantly helps parameter understanding.

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 storage configurations and lists supported actions (list, get, create, update, delete, cluster_usage). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like proxmox_storage_content, which is about storage content rather than configurations.

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 vs alternatives. The action parameter covers different operations but there is no context about prerequisites, such as requiring a specific node or storage identifier for certain actions, or when to use other Proxmox tools.

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