create_lxc

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by mentioning the confirmation requirement. It does not address whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or what permissions are needed, leaving gaps for safe agent execution.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. No wasted words.

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 13-parameter, 5-required tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits return values, error handling, success criteria, and relationships to other tools like list_templates for finding templates.

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 only 38%, and the description adds no additional meaning to any parameter beyond the schema. The only hint is 'template' which loosely relates to ostemplate, but explicit parameter guidance is absent.

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 action ('Create a new LXC container') and the resource type ('from a template'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_vm which is for virtual machines.

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?

It provides one usage guideline: requiring user confirmation before calling. However, it does not explain when to use this tool over alternatives like clone_resource or create_vm, nor does it specify prerequisites or context.

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