pve_network_iface_update

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

The description reveals it's a mutation, staged, dry-run by default, and synchronous. With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It could additionally mention that dry-run only validates without side effects, but the current info is sufficient.

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 two sentences plus a bullet-like last part, front-loading key info (mutation, staged) and then dry-run and confirm behavior. Every sentence adds essential context with no waste.

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 existence of an output schema, the description appropriately omits return values. It explains the staging lifecycle, which is critical for this tool. It could mention that the interface must exist, but the name implies update, and sibling create exists.

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 low (20%), but the description adds value by explaining that 'options' carries fields to update (address, netmask, bridge_ports, …). Other parameters like iface and confirm are left to naming, which is acceptable. The description compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 an existing network interface config', with 'MUTATION' prefix indicating write operation. It distinguishes from siblings like pve_network_iface_create (create) and pve_network_apply (apply) by specifying 'staged — not live until 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 the dry-run by default behavior and confirm=True to execute, guiding usage. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context of 'update existing' vs create is clear. Sibling tool pve_network_iface_create exists for creation.

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