pve_mapping_usb_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutation nature, dry-run behavior, and a smoke-confirm mechanism. However, it does not state if the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate mapping, authorization requirements, or potential destructive outcomes beyond being a mutation. The 'Smoke-confirm' phrase is cryptic and may confuse.

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 short (3 sentences) and front-loaded with 'MUTATION:'. However, the third sentence about smoke-confirm is unclear and sacrifices conciseness for ambiguous detail. It could be restructured to be more straightforward.

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?

Despite having an output schema (though not provided), the description does not explain return values or success/failure indications. It fails to clarify the overall process of creating a USB mapping, required fields, or common pitfalls. For a creation tool with 5 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 20% (only proximo_target has a description). The tool description adds no clarification for the other parameters (mapping_id, map, confirm, description). It only vaguely references 'id in body' for smoke-confirm, which does not align well with schema parameter names. Agent gets little help in understanding parameter semantics.

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 creates a USB cluster passthrough mapping, using 'MUTATION:' to indicate a write operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_mapping_usb_delete, pve_mapping_usb_list, and pve_mapping_usb_update, and from similar pve_mapping_pci_create. However, it could be more explicit about the 'cluster' aspect to fully differentiate.

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 default and confirm=True to execute, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for existing mappings, prerequisites like node or USB device availability). There is no mention of when not to use or what conditions must be met.

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