vm_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false; the [WRITE][risk=medium] tag corroborates rather than contradicts. The description adds that target comes from config, but says nothing about failure modes, required permissions, or whether retries could create duplicates (relevant given idempotentHint=false).

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?

Front-loads the write/risk tag and the core action, then lists arguments compactly with no filler. Every sentence earns its place and the argument block maps cleanly onto the required vs optional split.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and destructiveHint=true, the description omits what the call returns (e.g. the new VM's extId needed for follow-up vm_power_on/vm_get) and any warning about the destructive annotation on a create operation. It is adequate to invoke correctly but incomplete for a write tool of this class.

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 full burden and largely succeeds: it documents all five parameters, including that cluster_ext_id comes from cluster_list, the socket default of 1, and memory in bytes with a 4 GiB default (consistent with the schema default 4294967296). Only 'name' and the exact form of 'target' are left thin.

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?

States a specific verb (Create), resource (VM), scope (minimal, on a cluster), and a risk/write tag. 'Minimal VM' implicitly distinguishes it from vm_clone, but no sibling is named to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Context is implied: use when you need a bare VM rather than a copy (vm_clone), and cluster_ext_id explicitly points to cluster_list as the source. There is no explicit when-not guidance or statement of prerequisites such as powering the VM on after creation.

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