pve_network_iface_create

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

The description discloses that the tool is a mutation, synchronous, and staged, and explains the dry-run behavior. With no annotations provided, this covers essential behavioral traits. It does not mention authorization or error conditions, but the core behavior is clearly communicated.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loading the 'MUTATION' label and key behavior. Every sentence adds critical information 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 tool's complexity (creating a network interface with type-dependent options) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the staged dry-run workflow. It could mention that 'node' is optional and defaults to the local node, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The description adds value by explaining that the 'options' parameter carries type-dependent fields (address, netmask, gateway, etc.), which is not in the schema. However, schema description coverage is only 17%, and other parameters (node, iface, iface_type) lack descriptions; the description does not elaborate on them, so it partially compensates.

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 the verb 'create' and the resource 'network interface config', and distinguishes from siblings by explaining the staged nature (not live until pve_network_apply). This differentiates it from pve_network_iface_update and pve_network_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?

The description explains that the tool is dry-run by default and requires confirm=True to execute, providing clear usage context. It also mentions the requirement to apply changes with pve_network_apply, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools beyond the implicit staging.

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