pve_firewall_alias_create

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the mutation nature, dry-run default, PLAN contents, confirm execution, and passive state. However, it omits permissions, idempotency, and error conditions.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no redundant information, and front-loads the core purpose and workflow.

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?

The description covers the creation workflow but lacks details about parameter roles (e.g., node, vmid) and prerequisites. Output schema exists, so return format is covered, but more context on how the alias integrates with rules or scope options would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is very low (11%). The description explains the behavior of confirm and mentions scope in the PLAN, but does not describe most parameters (kind, node, vmid, comment). This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 creates a firewall alias (named CIDR). The verb 'create' and resource 'firewall alias' are specific, and the sibling tools (delete, update, list) are distinct by name and action.

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/confirm workflow but does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update or delete. Usage context is implied but not contrasted with siblings.

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