API Tokens

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the mutating/destructive nature. The description lists delete and update actions, which aligns with these annotations. However, it adds no extra behavioral context beyond what annotations and the schema's action enum already provide, such as potential side effects or permission requirements.

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 core purpose and lists actions. It contains no fluff or redundancy. It could be slightly more informative, but it is appropriately sized and to the point.

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 description is thin for a multi-action tool. It does not explain which parameters are required per action (e.g., tokenid for update/delete), or that userid and action are always required. There is no mention of return values or error conditions. Given the absence of an output schema, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to correctly invoke all actions without guessing.

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 83% (5 of 6 parameters have descriptions), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description only repeats the action enum values without clarifying action-specific parameter requirements (e.g., that tokenid is needed for get/update/delete). It adds marginal value over the schema, meeting the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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's purpose: 'Manage user API tokens' and enumerates the supported actions (list, get, create, update, delete). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like proxmox_user (which manages user accounts) and proxmox_acl (permissions). The verb 'manage' combined with the resource 'user API tokens' makes the intent unambiguous.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. While the resource name makes it obvious that it's for tokens, there is no mention of exclusions (e.g., 'use proxmox_user for user accounts') or conditions for using specific actions. Usage is implied from the name and the action list, but not explicitly stated.

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