pve_notification_matcher_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation nature, dry-run behavior, return formats (PLAN vs status/result), and idempotent create-or-update semantics. It lacks auth or error details but is still quite transparent.

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: 4 sentences, each adding distinct value. It front-loads the mutation label and purpose, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description covers main behaviors (dry-run, execution, return values) and mentions the delete sibling. It does not cover prerequisites or error conditions, but given the output schema exists (though not shown), the description is sufficiently complete for a CRUD-like tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds little beyond what's in the schema (e.g., 'confirm' behavior is already described). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'create-or-update a PVE notification matcher (alert routing rule).' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool pve_notification_matcher_delete by naming it.

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 explicit guidance: it explains the dry-run default vs confirm=True execution, and tells users when to use the delete sibling instead. It also mentions that the tool can be re-applied to restore after deletion, offering context for usage.

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