pve_node_hosts_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it declares MUTATION, RISK_MEDIUM, CAPTURE mechanism, dry-run vs. execution, return types, revert suggestion, and consequences. This is comprehensive and adds significant value beyond the input schema.

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, well-structured, and front-loaded with critical information. Every sentence adds value: purpose, risk, capture, warning, execution modes. No redundancy or filler.

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?

For a high-risk mutation tool, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, risk level, capture/revert strategy, execution modes, and return types. It is sufficiently complete given the context (schema coverage 100%, output schema present in principle).

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on individual parameter semantics beyond the schema, but it adds context about the overall workflow (e.g., CAPTURE relates to digest). This provides some extra value without explaining each parameter in depth.

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 ('replace the /etc/hosts file on a PVE node') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'pve_node_hosts_get' by being a mutation, and the context makes it unique among siblings.

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 outlines the dry-run behavior and confirmation requirement, and warns about potential breakage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the mutation vs. read dichotomy is implied.

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