pve_create_lxc

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits fully. It does mention 'Requires confirm=true,' which is a critical safety gate, but it omits other important behaviors such as whether the operation is asynchronous, whether it returns a task ID, or whether root privileges are needed. The description adds only this single requirement, leaving most behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 brief (two sentences), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It treats the tool as trivial when it has 12 parameters and likely a complex action. The single useful detail (confirm=true) is front-loaded, but the overall structure lacks the substance an agent needs to correctly invoke the tool.

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 complexity (12 parameters, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain how the parameters relate to the LXC container creation, what values are acceptable for things like rootfs or ostemplate, or how the tool behaves after invocation. Even though an output schema exists, the agent cannot know how to form a correct request from this description alone.

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 0%, yet the description provides no information about any of the 12 parameters except implicitly requiring 'confirm=true' to be set. It does not explain the meaning or format of required parameters like node, vmid, ostemplate, storage, or optional ones like memory, cores, net0, etc. The description entirely fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, making parameter usage unclear.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create an LXC container.' This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from pve_create_qemu_vm. However, it lacks additional context that could further differentiate it, such as mentioning it's for Proxmox VE containers versus VMs. The core purpose is clear and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of pve_create_qemu_vm or any other sibling for comparison, no preconditions, and no exclusions. The only hint is 'Requires confirm=true,' but this is a parameter requirement, not usage context. The description fails to help an agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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