pve_sdn_zone_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a mutation but with dry-run default and that the zone remains pending until pve_sdn_apply. It also labels risk as low. This is good transparency for a staging operation.

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 very concise (3-4 lines), front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. 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 the tool has an output schema (so return values need not be explained) and is relatively straightforward, the description covers the essential behavioral context: pending nature, dry-run, risk level, and type-specific params. It could explicitly link to pve_sdn_apply, but that is implied.

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 17%, so the description must compensate. It explains zone_type values and that options holds type-specific params, but does not describe zone, confirm, lock_token, or proximo_target beyond what the schema provides (except proximo_target which already has a schema description).

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 it creates an SDN zone and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_sdn_apply by noting the zone is pending until that call. It also lists the possible zone_type values, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 context: it's a staging operation ('not applied here'), dry-run by default, and low risk. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like pve_sdn_zone_update for modifications.

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