vm_migrate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a write, high-risk, and reversible, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., downtime, constraints), error handling, or asynchronous behavior. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise: two paragraphs with clear purpose and argument list. No fluff; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the key verb and risk level.

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?

Lacks output/return value description and details on async behavior, failure modes, or prerequisites (e.g., host must be in same cluster). Siblings are many, but the tool's niche is clear. Could be more complete for a high-risk operation.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains that vm_ext_id comes from vm_list, target_host_ext_id from host_list, dry_run as preview, and target as optional Prism Central reference. Schema has 0% coverage, so this is essential.

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: live-migrate a VM to another host. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and notes reversibility ('reversible → prior host'), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on snapshots, power operations, or queries.

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 guidance on using dry_run=True for preview and mentions audit annotations for approval. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like vm_clone or vm_create, though the scope is implied.

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