pve_sdn_vnet_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses mutation, pending status, dry-run default, and low risk. This adequately informs the agent about the tool's behavior and side-effects.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences packed with essential info. Front-loaded with action and resource. No wasted words.

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 an output schema exists and moderate complexity (6 params, 2 required), the description covers key behavioral aspects: mutation, pending, dry-run, risk level, and clarifies the options parameter. Could mention confirm parameter role, but overall sufficiently complete.

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?

Only 17% schema coverage, but description clarifies the 'options' parameter: 'carries tag/alias/vlanaware/etc.' This adds value beyond the schema. Other parameters (vnet, zone, confirm, lock_token) lack description, but the tool name implies vnet and zone are the creation target.

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?

Description clearly states the tool creates an SDN vnet in a zone, with a specific verb ('create') and resource ('SDN vnet'). It differentiates from sibling tools like pve_sdn_vnet_delete and pve_sdn_vnet_update by highlighting it's a creation operation.

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?

Provides useful context: 'Dry-run by default' and 'RISK_LOW (staging; inert until pve_sdn_apply)' indicates safe, pending creation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs update/delete, but the purpose is clear enough.

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