Start Proxmox stats collection

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

The description discloses meaningful side effects beyond the annotations: it registers a viewer and starts or reuses polling. This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) by explaining what the non-read-only, non-idempotent behavior actually does. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 front-loaded, and the second sentence adds genuinely useful behavioral detail. The only minor inefficiency is that the opening clause largely repeats the tool title, but overall it is concise and well-structured.

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 tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is not complete enough. It omits the meaning of 'id', gives no indication of what result the caller should expect, and does not explain how this relates to sibling get/stop tools.

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 0%, so the description must explain the required 'id' parameter, but it never explicitly does so. The phrase 'for a host's' weakly implies that id identifies a host, but an agent cannot be confident about what value to supply or where the id comes from.

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 uses a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('Proxmox stats collection') and clarifies the operational behavior: it registers a viewer and starts or reuses polling for a host's Proxmox node stats. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like stop_proxmox_stats_collection, get_cached_proxmox_node_stats_host, and get_historical_proxmox_node_stats_host.

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 implies the tool should be used when you want to start Proxmox stats collection for a host, and it tells the agent that existing polling may be reused rather than duplicated. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so the usage guidance is present but mostly implicit.

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