pmg_apt_repository_set

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it's a mutation with RISK_MEDIUM affecting package provenance, dry-run behavior, confirmation requirement, pre-read dependency, and config requirement. This is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity.

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 well-structured and front-loads the purpose. It is somewhat verbose with sections like 'CAPTURE' and 'Proxmox's API', but each sentence adds value. Slightly longer than necessary but still effective.

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 (7 parameters, mutation, risk, dry-run), the description covers purpose, behavior, usage, dependencies, config requirements, and return values. It is complete and leaves no critical gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, only mentioning 'file path + index' as key parameters. No additional parameter details or constraints are provided.

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 clearly states the tool is for enabling/disabling an APT repository entry on a PMG node, specifying the method (by file path and index). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like pmg_apt_repository_add or pve_apt_repository_set.

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 some usage context (dry-run by default, confirm to execute, needs PROXIMO_PMG_* config) and implies reading first via pmg_apt_repositories_get, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like adding a new repository.

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