pve_sdn_subnet_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a mutation, that it's pending and inert until 'apply', and notes low risk. However, it does not explain behavior on duplicate subnets, idempotency, or the effect of the 'confirm' parameter.

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, with every sentence contributing useful information. It starts with the core action and proceeds to key details. A slightly more structured format (e.g., listing parameters) could improve readability but is not necessary.

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 has an output schema and 6 parameters, the description provides essential context (purpose, dry-run, risk) but omits prerequisites, the effect of 'confirm', and how to finalize the creation. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 meaning for 'subnet' (CIDR format example) and 'options' (gateway/snat/dhcp params) beyond schema titles. However, with only 17% schema coverage, it fails to explain the other four parameters (vnet, confirm, lock_token, proximo_target), leaving gaps.

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 action ('create') and resource ('SDN subnet'), includes an example of the subnet parameter, and distinguishes it from siblings by being the create variant. The 'MUTATION' prefix and 'PENDING' status further clarify its role.

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 implies the tool is for creating subnets but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., pve_sdn_subnet_update, pve_sdn_subnet_delete). It hints at a dry-run default and pending state but lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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