pve_create_storage

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 offers none. It doesn't indicate that this is a write operation (creating storage), potential side effects (e.g., system configuration changes), authentication requirements, or any constraints like rate limits. The description is too minimal to provide any behavioral context.

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 concise with only two words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It fails to front-load essential details, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema and tool name alone. Every sentence should earn its place, but this description lacks substantive content.

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 complexity (19 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose in context, behavioral implications, or usage scenarios. For a creation tool with many parameters, the description should provide more guidance to complement the schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all 19 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, such as explaining dependencies between parameters (e.g., 'path' is needed for 'dir' type) or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 new storage' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'pve_create_storage' without adding specificity. It lacks details about what 'storage' means in this context (e.g., Proxmox storage configuration for VMs/containers) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like pve_update_storage or pve_list_storage.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions), when it's appropriate (e.g., setting up new storage for VMs), or refer to related tools like pve_update_storage for modifications or pve_delete_storage for removal.

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