pdm_call_endpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key traits well: read-only gate behavior, write enablement mechanism (with both env var surfaces), the confirmation requirement for destructive ops mentioned in schema, and the explicit validation steps. However, it does not describe the return format shape, error behavior on validation failure, or network/API error handling. The 'Valdestructive confirm required' caveat lives in the schema parameter description rather than being reinforced here.

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 compact (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. It packs validation behavior, write-gate mechanics, both env var surfaces, and a usage pointer into efficient supporting sentences without padding or redundancy.

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 wrapper tool that delegates to a describe_endpoint companion, the description is fairly complete: it covers when reads/writes run, how writes are enabled, validation steps, and points to describe_endpoint for param details. With no output schema, it doesn't detail the mock JSON response shape, and given the complexity (nested params/path_params/confirm), slightly more coverage of response/error semantics would round it out.

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 carry semantics for the parameters. It explains operation_id as 'The endpoint operationId to call' with an example ('get_nodes') and directs to describe_endpoint for details. It also clarifies params maps to query params for GET/DELETE vs JSON body for POST/PUT, and path_params for {placeholder} values. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 what the tool does: 'Call a Proxmox Datacenter Manager API endpoint and return its JSON response.' It uses a specific verb (call) + resource (PDM API endpoint), and distinguishes it from the sibling pve_call_endpoint by naming the Proxmox Datacenter Manager (PDM) specifically. The validation and write-gate enforcement steps add useful process detail.

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 provides clear context on when this tool runs: 'Reads (GET) always run; writes (POST/PUT/DELETE) run only when enabled via PROXMOX_ALLOW_WRITES=true or PDM_ALLOW_WRITES=true.' It also instructs to 'Use pdm_describe_endpoint first to learn the exact params,' naming a specific sibling alternative. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance relative to pve_call_endpoint, but the PDM vs PVE distinction is evident from the naming and the write-enabling alternatives are clearly enumerated.

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