VM Disks

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds 'all elevated' hinting at required privileges, which is a small extra. It doesn't disclose potential data loss or irreversible effects, but given annotation coverage, it adds minimal 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 a single concise line with no fluff. It front-loads the action list, but it is under-specified rather than over-long. Efficiency is good, though it sacrifices necessary detail.

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 destructive tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It lacks information about the effect of removal, prerequisites, what 'elevated' entails, or how the operation interacts with the VM. The description does not adequately prepare an agent to use this tool safely.

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%, so most parameters are already described. The description only restates the action enum, which is already in the schema, and adds nothing about size, storage, or disk naming beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 states it manages VM disks and explicitly lists the two actions (add/remove), which gives a clear verb-resource pair. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like proxmox_guest_disk_resize or proxmox_guest_disk_move, so the scope is not fully differentiated.

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 lists the actions but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions that would select this tool over disk resize/move or other disk-related tools.

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