pve_firewall_security_group_create

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

The description discloses mutation behavior, dry-run default, and the passive nature until rules are added. This is adequate given no annotations, but it could mention that the group is cluster-wide.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 explains the key behaviors and how the group becomes active. With an output schema present, return values are not needed. However, it could mention that the group belongs to the PVE cluster firewall context.

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 only 25% (only proximo_target described). The description adds little beyond the schema: it hints at confirm for dry-run but does not explain the 'group' or 'comment' 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?

The description clearly states 'create an empty cluster security group', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like pve_firewall_security_group_delete by focusing on creation, but does not explicitly differentiate from other creation tools.

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 implies usage ('Dry-run by default') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or alternative tool references are provided.

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