pve_acl_modify

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It discloses mutation, dry-run, synchronous execution, and the important Proxmox ACL gotcha (shadowing/widening). Lacks disclosure of error handling or permissions.

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?

Exceptionally concise: three short sentences with key information front-loaded. Uses bold for 'MUTATION' and clear formatting for parameter meanings. No wasted words.

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?

While the critical gotcha is explained, the description omits many details needed for a complex mutation tool with 8 parameters: return value (though output schema exists), error states, idempotency, and exact syntax for roles and targets. Requires more context for complete understanding.

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 only 13%; description adds meaning for 'kind' (user/group/token) and 'delete' (grant/revoke), and implies 'confirm' usage. Does not explain path, roles, target, propagate, or proximo_target parameters.

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?

Description clearly states it's a MUTATION to grant or revoke an ACL entry, with the HTTP method and endpoint. It distinguishes itself from sibling ACL tools like pve_acl_list and pve_acl_prune by focusing on modification.

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?

Explicitly mentions dry-run default and confirmation pattern. Provides critical context about shadowing/widening behavior. However, does not explicitly contrast with other ACL tools for when to use each.

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