pve_sdn_vnet_update

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals mutation, pending state, dry-run default, and risk level. However, it omits details on how to confirm/cancel the operation (the 'confirm' parameter's role is not explained), the effect of 'digest', and the return format or success/failure indicators. These gaps reduce transparency.

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 at three sentences, with critical information front-loaded ('MUTATION') and clear structure. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 7 parameters and no annotations, the description provides a basic overview but lacks depth. It explains the mutation's purpose and dry-run behavior, but does not cover expected output (though output schema exists), parameter interplay (e.g., how 'confirm' overrides dry-run), or post-apply effects. More complete guidance on the staging workflow would improve this.

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 only 14% (only proximo_target documented). The description adds meaning to 'options' (sets fields like tag/alias/vlanaware) and 'delete' (removes keys), but does not cover 'digest', 'confirm', or 'lock_token'. Thus, it adds partial value but leaves key parameters unexplained.

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 ('update an SDN vnet'), identifies it as a mutation, and notes it is pending until pve_sdn_apply. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_sdn_vnet_create and pve_sdn_vnet_delete by indicating it modifies existing vnets.

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 pending status, providing usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pve_sdn_vnet_create or pve_sdn_vnet_update without apply. The exclusion of when-not-to-use or alternative tool comparison leaves some ambiguity.

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