pve_network_iface_create

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

Discloses key behaviors: mutation, staged (not live until apply), dry-run default, confirm=True stages synchronously, return format (PLAN or {status, result}), and risk level (RISK_MEDIUM, reversible). No annotations provided, so description fully carries the burden.

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?

Two concise sentences: first sentence states core purpose and staging, second covers options, alternatives, dry-run, output, and risk. No fluff, front-loaded with critical info.

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's complexity (mutation, staging, dry-run, multiple parameters), the description covers workflow, risk, output schema implicitly, and differentiates from siblings. With output schema existing, no need to detail return values.

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 100% (baseline 3). Description adds value by explaining 'options' carries type-dependent fields (address, netmask, etc.) and clarifies 'confirm' behavior. Does not describe all parameters but adds meaningful context.

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 'create a new network interface config' with verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'pve_network_iface_update' by explicitly mentioning update tool. The 'MUTATION' prefix and 'staged' note add clarity.

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 use pve_network_iface_update for updating existing interfaces. Explains dry-run vs confirm behavior. Lacks guidance on when not to use (e.g., if only listing needed) but provides good context.

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