pve_create_node_network

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate that this is a write/mutation operation, doesn't mention permissions required, doesn't warn about potential system impact, and provides no information about what happens after creation (e.g., whether network changes take effect immediately or require a restart).

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?

While the description is extremely concise at just three words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't front-load important information and fails to provide any meaningful context for a complex tool with 12 parameters.

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 complex network creation tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'node network interface' is in the Proxmox VE context, doesn't provide usage examples or constraints, and offers no information about the operation's behavior or results.

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%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone.

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 network interface' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_create_node_network'. It lacks specificity about what resource is being created (a network interface on a Proxmox VE node) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_update_node_network' or 'pve_delete_node_network'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate compared to sibling tools like 'pve_update_node_network' or 'pve_apply_node_network', or any context about network configuration in Proxmox VE.

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