pve_network_apply

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

Despite no annotations, description comprehensively discloses mutation risk, high risk, dry-run behavior, no automatic undo, potential loss of SSH/API access, and async/sync return pattern. Leaves no ambiguity about tool's safety profile.

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?

Description is dense but not overly long. Front-loaded with risk label and primary purpose. Could be slightly more structured with bullet points for risk/return, but still efficiently conveys all critical information in two sentences.

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 tool complexity (high-risk mutation), description covers usage sequence, risk, alternatives, return behavior. Output schema exists, so return values are handled. No gaps in useful information.

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 already describes parameters fully, but description adds context: node default meaning, confirm behavior (dry-run vs apply), and proximo_target purpose. Adds value beyond schema, especially clarifying node default behavior not in schema.

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?

Description clearly states action ('apply staged network config changes'), specifies it's a mutation, and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning prior staging steps and directing SDN changes to pve_sdn_apply.

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?

Explicitly instructs to stage changes first, warns against using for SDN, explains dry-run default, and details implications of confirm=True. Provides clear when-to-use and 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.