create_container

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

Annotations already mark this as a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds key behavioral constraints: vmid must not already exist, start controls post-creation startup, and recommends leaving unprivileged true unless host device access is needed. It stops short of disclosing failure modes or permission requirements.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a compact, labeled Args list. Every parameter line adds meaningful guidance without unnecessary prose.

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 complex 13-parameter creation tool, the description covers all inputs, references storage_content for template discovery, and explains 'extra' for arbitrary config keys. An output schema exists, so not detailing return values is acceptable.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 13 parameters with types, examples, and defaults. It even covers the free-form 'extra' parameter and provides an ostemplate example and lookup method.

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 opens with 'Create a new LXC container', using a specific verb and resource type. The term 'LXC' clearly distinguishes this from the sibling create_vm tool for virtual machines.

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?

Provides practical guidance: how to find templates with storage_content, when to keep unprivileged true, and preferring SSH keys over passwords. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives like create_vm.

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