proxmox_user_token

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It merely lists operations (CRUD) but omits critical details such as idempotency, permission requirements, side effects, or rate limits. The description lacks depth for safe invocation.

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 short and to the point, avoiding unnecessary words. However, it could integrate more useful context without becoming verbose.

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 moderate complexity (6 params, 1 enum, no output schema), the description provides the basic purpose and operations but lacks details on return values, error handling, or usage contexts. It is minimally complete.

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 coverage is high (83%) with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond listing the operations; it does not clarify parameter usage patterns or constraints. Hence, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the resource (user API tokens) and lists supported operations (list, get, create, update, delete), providing a clear purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'proxmox_user', making the purpose slightly less distinctive.

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 alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without direction for selection.

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