pve_mapping_usb_update

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it is a mutation ('MUTATION'), safe to dry-run, and reads current config for plan honesty. This covers the most important safety aspect. However, it does not mention error behavior or required permissions.

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?

Extremely concise: two short sentences front-loaded with the mutation label and action. Every clause adds independent value (purpose, dry-run behavior, execution flag, config reading). No wasted words.

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 covers the operational pattern well but omits parameter details and context about when mapping_id is required. With an output schema present, return values are covered, but the low schema coverage and missing parameter descriptions leave gaps for correct invocation.

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 very low (17%) and the description only explains the 'confirm' parameter implicitly. Other parameters like 'map', 'digest', 'description', 'mapping_id', and 'proximo_target' are not described, leaving the agent to infer from names only.

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 'update a USB cluster mapping' with the verb 'update' and resource 'USB cluster mapping'. It is distinct from sibling tools like create, delete, list, so purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit instructions: 'Dry-run by default. confirm=True to execute.' This tells the agent exactly how to use the tool safely and when to actually apply changes. No ambiguity about prerequisites or context.

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