pve_update_node_network

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. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, if changes are destructive to existing network connectivity, what happens to unspecified fields, or if there are rate limits. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise at just three words. While it's under-specified in terms of content, it's not verbose or poorly structured. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens during the update, potential side effects, error conditions, or return values. The combination of sparse description with rich parameter schema creates significant gaps in understanding how to use this tool effectively.

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, with all 9 parameters documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 network interface' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_update_node_network'. It doesn't specify what resource is being updated (node network interface) or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'pve_create_node_network' or 'pve_delete_node_network'. The description lacks the specific verb+resource combination needed for clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or reference sibling tools like 'pve_create_node_network' for creation or 'pve_revert_node_network' for rollback. The description provides zero contextual usage information.

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