pve_ceph_mon_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses all behavioral traits: it declares itself a mutation, states RISK_MEDIUM (extends quorum), auto-creates Manager on first monitor, explains dry-run vs. execution, and clarifies the lack of rollback. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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, front-loaded with the key purpose (MUTATION: create a Ceph Monitor), and organized into clear, brief clauses that each add necessary information without redundancy.

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 with 5 params, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, risk, defaulting, dry-run, pre-checks, revert method, and output format. It is fully sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the combined effect of parameters (e.g., monid defaults to nodename, confirm controls dry-run vs. execution) and the first-monitor behavior that auto-creates a Manager, which is not captured in the schema.

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 begins with 'MUTATION: create a Ceph Monitor', clearly specifying the action and resource. It further distinguishes itself by noting the auto-creation of a Manager on first monitor, which differentiates it from sibling tools like pve_ceph_mon_destroy or pve_ceph_mon_list.

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 when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including the defaulting of monid, the dry-run plan vs. execution behavior, the need to read the monitor list first (with alternative pve_ceph_mon_list), and the revert method via pve_ceph_mon_destroy.

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