pve_ceph_mds_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states it is a mutation (MUTATION), risk level (RISK_MEDIUM), default parameter behavior, the CAPTURE-or-declare pattern with fallback to complete=False, the dry-run default and confirm=True execution, and the lack of rollback (revert via pve_ceph_mds_destroy).

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 concise, with only 5 well-structured sentences. It uses formatting (bold, capitalization) to highlight key aspects like MUTATION and RISK_MEDIUM. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the tool's purpose.

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 creating an MDS with dry-run, CAPTURE-or-declare, and default parameters, the description is quite complete. It explains the workflow, references a sibling for list, and mentions the lack of rollback. However, it does not detail error handling or output format (though output schema exists), and a brief note about required permissions would strengthen it.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that 'name' defaults to the nodename and that 'confirm=False' returns a dry-run plan while 'confirm=True' executes. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions, providing operational context.

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 explicitly states 'MUTATION: create a Ceph Metadata Server (MDS).' It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('Ceph Metadata Server'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like pve_ceph_mds_list or pve_ceph_mds_destroy.

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 explains the dry-run vs. execute workflow, default parameter behavior, and references pve_ceph_mds_list for reading current state. It provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the sibling list tool.

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