pve_firewall_security_group_create

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is a mutation, dry-run by default, synchronous execution with immediate response, and no undo. It also explains the passive nature until rules reference the group.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph. Each sentence adds value: purpose, dry-run behavior, activation condition, execution model, and undo. It is concise and front-loaded with the key action.

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 presence of an output schema, the description covers essential aspects: creation, dry-run, activation, execution, and undo. It is largely complete, though it could briefly mention that the PLAN structure is in the output schema.

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 all parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions that the PLAN shows the name, which is implicit. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('create') and the resource ('cluster security group'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_firewall_security_group_delete by explicitly mentioning deletion as the undo method.

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 clear context: dry-run by default, activation only after rules are added and referenced, and no undo except deletion. It does not explicitly list alternative tools but the information given is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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