pve_ha_rule_update

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries transparency. It discloses mutation, dry-run default, synchronous execution, risk level, and potential CRM migration. However, it does not detail the output format or idempotency.

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, one sentence with clear markers (MUTATION, dry-run, confirm, risk). Every phrase earns its place 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 complexity (12 params, low schema coverage) and presence of output schema, the description covers core behavior well but neglects parameter details. An output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 8%, yet the description only explains `delete` and `confirm`. It fails to clarify other parameters (e.g., nodes, digest, strict) that are critical for correct usage.

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 it updates an HA rule with 'MUTATION' and explains the dry-run behavior, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools pve_ha_rule_create and pve_ha_rule_delete.

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 via dry-run and confirm, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It mentions risk but lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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