pve_update_acl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose critical traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or side effects. It lacks any behavioral context beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps for a tool that modifies access control.

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 a single phrase 'Update Access Control List', which is appropriately concise and front-loaded. There is no wasted text, making it efficient. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as specifying the system context (e.g., Proxmox VE).

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 of updating access control (a sensitive mutation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an ACL is, the impact of updates, error conditions, or return values. For a tool with 6 parameters and significant security implications, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 6 parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or interdependencies. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.

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 'Update Access Control List' states the action (update) and resource (Access Control List), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what an ACL is in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like pve_get_acl (which likely retrieves ACLs) or other update tools. It meets the minimum requirement but lacks specificity.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons to siblings like pve_get_acl. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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