Users

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

Annotations already disclose the destructive and non-read-only nature of the tool, and the description's action list includes 'delete', which aligns with those annotations. No additional behavioral context is provided, such as permission requirements, permanence of deletion, or realm-specific behavior.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the resource and enumerates all supported actions. There is no wasted text.

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?

This is a multi-action CRUD tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, yet the description gives no action-specific guidance. For example, it does not state that 'get', 'update', and 'delete' likely require 'userid', or which parameters are relevant to 'create'. The schema documents individual fields but not the per-action invocation requirements, leaving important gaps for correct usage.

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 92%, so the input schema handles most parameter semantics. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and does not clarify which parameters apply to which action, but the high schema coverage makes this acceptable.

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 ('Proxmox users') and the supported operations ('list, get, create, update, delete'). It is clear enough to identify the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from closely related sibling tools like proxmox_user_token or proxmox_group.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The intended use is only implied by the resource name and action list, so an agent receives little help selecting between this and related user/role/group tools.

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