qemu_vm_create

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true, readOnly=false, and idempotent=false. The description adds useful context about the broker-local disk requirement and remote-upload limitation, but it never discloses what destructive side effect may occur—whether the source disk is consumed, moved, or if an existing VM could be affected. This is a meaningful gap beyond what annotations state.

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 exactly two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the critical broker-local caveat follows immediately. Every sentence adds distinct 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 destructive tool with 13 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool actually returns, whether a VM is created immediately or just defined, how profile and overrides interact, or what the destructive consequence is. Agents calling this tool correctly would need substantially more guidance.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining 13 parameters. It only adds meaning for disk_path ('belongs to the broker host; remote-media upload not available'). Parameters like name, cpus, memory, profile, overrides, acceleration, and qemu_binary receive no semantic guidance, leaving the agent to infer their roles from bare schema constraints.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination: 'Import a broker-local disk into a new managed qcow2 QEMU VM.' It clearly distinguishes creation of a VM from disk import versus other VM lifecycle operations like qemu_vm_start or qemu_vm_update. The tool's purpose is immediately obvious and not a tautology of the name.

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 a clear usage context: the disk must currently reside on the broker host, and remote-media upload is explicitly unavailable. However, it does not name alternative tools (e.g., qemu_media_push) or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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