pve_create_ha_resource

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the action 'Create HA resource'. It fails to mention critical traits such as whether this is a mutating operation, permission requirements, side effects (e.g., impact on cluster state), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 overly concise to the point of under-specification, consisting of only three words. While brief, it lacks necessary detail for a tool with six parameters and no annotations, failing to provide value beyond the tool name. This brevity does not earn its place as a helpful description.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutating operation with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not address what an HA resource is, how it integrates with the system, expected outcomes, or error handling. The schema covers parameters, but the description fails to provide the broader context needed for effective use.

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 100%, with all parameters documented in the schema (e.g., 'sid' as HA resource ID, 'state' with enum values). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors. Since the schema provides full coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 'Create HA resource' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It lacks specificity about what an 'HA resource' entails (e.g., a high-availability configuration for VMs or containers) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_create_ha_group' or 'pve_update_ha_resource', leaving the purpose vague beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing HA groups), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'pve_update_ha_resource' or 'pve_delete_ha_resource', leaving the agent without context for appropriate selection.

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