pve_apt_repository_set

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it's a mutation, includes dry-run/confirm workflow, return formats (PLAN vs {'status': 'ok'}), and the need to read current state (CAPTURE). It also notes that Proxmox API does not expose upgrade execution, setting clear boundaries. No contradictions.

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-loaded: a clear one-liner, then risk, capture advice, and dry-run/confirm behavior. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. Still, it efficiently communicates key information without excess.

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 (mutation, 7 params, need for prerequisite read), the description covers risk, workflow, return types, and relation to reading. It references pve_apt_repositories_get and explains the dry-run vs confirm behavior. The output schema exists but the description still describes the return values sufficiently. Complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 context for the overall workflow (dry-run, confirm, capture) but does not significantly enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond the schema. The description mentions 'by file path + index' which mirrors required params but adds no new semantics.

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's purpose: 'MUTATION: enable/disable one APT repository entry on a PVE node, by file path + index.' It specifies the exact action (enable/disable), resource (APT repository entry), and scope (PVE node, file path, index), distinguishing it from siblings like pve_apt_repositories_get and pve_apt_repository_add.

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 explicit guidance: 'Dry-run by default (returns a PLAN); confirm=True executes' and advises reading current repository state via pve_apt_repositories_get before planning. It also explains the risk level (RISK_MEDIUM) and that the tool only governs repo config, not upgrade execution, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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