upgrade_proxmox

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, safety, or operational impact. 'Upgrade Proxmox VE' only implies a change operation; it does not mention that an upgrade can be disruptive, may require reboot, or have specific prerequisites. This is a significant gap for a system-level mutation.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single phrase does not earn its place because it provides no useful information beyond the tool name. For a tool with two parameters and no annotations, more content is needed to be minimally useful.

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 that this is a potentially disruptive upgrade operation with no output schema, no annotations, and two parameters, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain upgrade behavior, node vs cluster scope, or relationship to sibling tools like get_updates. The agent cannot reliably decide when or how to invoke this tool.

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 100%, so the parameter names and descriptions in the schema already document both 'node' and 'dist_upgrade'. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. With coverage that high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Upgrade Proxmox VE' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'upgrade_proxmox' with the acronym expanded. It does not add any specifics about scope (e.g., node or cluster) or behavior, and it does not distinguish this tool from related operations like get_updates or get_proxmox_version. This is closes to a tautology.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_updates or version checks. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or recommended context. No exclusions are given, but the absence of any usage context leaves the agent without direction.

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