vm_clone

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces the write nature and adds behavior beyond them: async execution, UPID return, explicit instruction not to re-issue, a preview path, and the inverse operation. This is meaningful context an agent needs for safe invocation.

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 tag, action, return value, and inverse in the first line, then async/preview guidance, then an Args list. Every sentence adds information with no redundancy.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value (task UPID), the async workflow, preview capability, and every parameter. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 it documents all six parameters: vmid as source, newid as unused target id, name as optional, dry_run preview, target from config, and node with the useful 'omit to auto-locate' semantics. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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+resource ('Clone a VM to a new vmid') and adds scope details (returns task UPID, inverse is vm_delete(newid)) that distinguish it from siblings like vm_migrate or vm_snapshot_create. An agent can identify the operation and its counterpart 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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: poll completion with task_status rather than re-issuing, and use dry_run=True to preview. It names the follow-up tool (task_status) and inverse (vm_delete). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance against sibling tools, but the context is clear.

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