pve_sdn_subnet_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It indicates mutation via 'MUTATION' and mentions 'PENDING' and dry-run behavior. However, it does not explain what 'PENDING' means (e.g., whether a subsequent apply is needed), how the dry-run works (is it a parameter-controlled flag?), or any side effects. The description is somewhat transparent but leaves important questions unanswered.

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 extremely concise – two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads 'MUTATION', then gives the purpose, parameter hint, and safety notes. Every sentence earns its place.

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 is a mutation with 8 parameters and a 'PENDING' state, the description lacks crucial workflow context. It does not explain how to commit changes after dry-run, what the confirm parameter does, or the lifecycle of the pending state. The output schema exists but doesn't compensate for the missing operational flow. The description is incomplete for safe and correct usage.

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 schema description coverage is only 13% (1 of 8 parameters has a description). The description adds meaning to the 'subnet' parameter by linking it to pve_sdn_subnet_list, but the other 7 parameters (vnet, delete, digest, confirm, options, lock_token, proximo_target) are left unexplained. With such low coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 SDN subnet' – a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like pve_sdn_subnet_create, pve_sdn_subnet_delete, and pve_sdn_subnet_list. It also clarifies that 'subnet' is the ID from pve_sdn_subnet_list, tying to a known list 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 mentions 'Dry-run by default' and 'RISK_LOW (staging)', giving context that it's safe for staging and defaults to a dry-run. However, it does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives like pve_sdn_subnet_create or when not to use it (e.g., if changes need to be applied immediately). The guidance is present but limited.

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