vm_migrate

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing live migration, reversibility back to the prior host, risk=high audit tier 'review', and optional approval/rationale env vars. It doesn't state what happens on failure or partial migration, but the risk and audit context is richer than the raw hints.

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=high] tags and one-line purpose, then a compact Args block. Efficient overall, though the audit/approval sentence is slightly run-on and the tag prefixes duplicate the annotation hints.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, it covers risk, reversibility, preview, and every parameter. Only failure semantics and post-migration state are unaddressed, which is a minor gap given how much is otherwise specified.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description documents all four params and their provenance (vm_ext_id from vm_list, target_host_ext_id from host_list, dry_run preview behavior, target config default). This meaningfully compensates for the empty schema, though formats are still terse.

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 and resource (live-migrate a VM) plus the destination (another host), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling write operations like vm_clone, vm_protect, and vm_power_on. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Implies usage context ('Live-migrate', use dry_run=True to preview) but never states when to choose this over alternatives such as vm_protect or cluster-level rebalancing, nor any prerequisites for the source/target hosts. The dry_run preview hint is the only actionable guidance.

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