pve_token_create

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses mutation, dry-run behavior, risk of privsep=False, synchronous execution, and that the token secret is returned once and never written to the audit ledger. This covers key behavioral traits.

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 a clear opening statement and well-structured bullet points about dry-run, risk, confirm, and secret handling. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a token creation tool, the description covers critical aspects: dry-run, execution, risk, and secret return. It does not detail output schema but mentions the secret return, which is sufficient given the high-level context.

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 coverage is only 14%, so the description must compensate. It mentions privsep and confirm with context, but does not explain most other parameters (userid, tokenid, expire, comment). Some value added but not comprehensive.

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 verb 'create' and resource 'API token for a user'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_token_revoke and pve_tokens_list by specifying creation.

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 explains the dry-run default and the need for confirm=True to execute, including a risk warning about privsep=False. It does not explicitly list alternatives but provides sufficient context for when to use.

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