proxmox_script_command

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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, non-destructive operation; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context by stating it never fetches or runs the command and that execution is the caller's responsibility. It doesn't specify the rendered output shape (e.g., a single curl|bash line), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the core action, and the safety disclaimers follow immediately. No filler or restated title.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose and safety adequately. A brief note on what the rendered string looks like (or that it is inert text meant for copy-paste) would close the remaining gap.

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 100% and the slug parameter's description already gives the source tool and an example ("docker"). The prose adds only that the command belongs to "one" script, so the schema does the heavy lifting — baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb ("Render") plus specific resource ("the pinned install command for one Proxmox VE Community Script"), and the second clause clarifies what it does NOT do. It doesn't explicitly name proxmox_script_list as its upstream sibling in the description body (that link lives only in the schema), so sibling differentiation is slightly incomplete.

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 caller reviews and runs it themselves on the Proxmox host" implies the usage context — you fetch text rather than trigger an install — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative (e.g., install_app for actual execution is only inferable from the sibling list).

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