pve_node_dns_set

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

Without annotations, the description takes on full disclosure duty. It explicitly labels the tool as 'MUTATION', declares RISK_MEDIUM with cluster-wide impact, describes the capture/confirmation pattern, and honestly reports that the endpoint has not been live-verified. This provides substantial behavioral insight beyond the minimal 'update DNS'.

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 very concise, front-loading the core action ('MUTATION: update DNS resolver configuration'), then adding essential context (risk, capture pattern, confirm, endpoint note) without wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

While the description covers purpose, risk, and high-level usage pattern, it lacks parameter explanations for the majority of the schema. Given the complexity (7 parameters, mutation risk) and low schema coverage, additional detail on the DNS parameters is needed for full completeness.

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 input schema has 7 parameters but only 14% description coverage (only 'proximo_target' is documented). The tool description does not explain the purpose or allowed values of 'dns1', 'dns2', 'dns3', 'search', or 'node'. It only mentions 'confirm' in passing. This is a significant gap for correct invocation.

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 action ('update DNS resolver configuration') and the resource ('a PVE node'). It distinguishes from the read-only sibling 'pve_node_dns' by explicitly mentioning 'MUTATION' and advising to reuse the read tool.

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 provides clear usage context: when to use (to update DNS), a prerequisite (read current config first), a precondition check (if unreadable, complete=False), and an execution guard (confirm=True to execute). It also notes risk level and caveat about verification. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools for similar mutations.

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