pve_ha_resource_add

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 the mutation nature, that dry-run shows the plan (SID, group, initial state, blast radius), that confirm=True executes, and notes synchronous config write with async CRM enforcement. It also warns about state='stopped' having high blast radius. This is thorough, though permission requirements are missing.

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—only three sentences—and front-loads the main action. It efficiently conveys the dry-run vs confirm behavior, plan output, and sync/async aspects. No unnecessary words, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate behavioral notes from execution instructions).

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 has 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description covers core operation and safety (dry-run, blast radius) but lacks details on error handling, prerequisites (e.g., guest must be on cluster), or what the output schema contains. It is fairly complete for a basic mutation tool but could be more thorough.

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 very low (13%), with only proximo_target described. The description indirectly references parameters (SID, group, initial state) but does not explain parameter names, types, or constraints beyond the schema. It adds value by explaining the dry-run/confirm pattern, but the agent must rely on the sparse schema for most parameter details.

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 starts with 'MUTATION: add a guest to HA management', which clearly states the verb (add) and resource (guest to HA management). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like pve_ha_resource_remove or pve_ha_resources_list by focusing on adding a guest. The explanation of dry-run vs confirm further clarifies the purpose without tautology.

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 default behavior (dry-run) and how to execute with confirm=True, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., when to use pve_ha_resource_add vs pve_ha_rule_create) or specify prerequisites (e.g., guest must exist). The guidance is adequate but lacks exclusion criteria.

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