vm_migrate

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: the asynchronous execution model, the UPID return, the ability to dry-run, and the existence of a reversing operation. It doesn't cover permission requirements or the state of the source node after migration.

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-loaded with the [WRITE] tag, verb, and return, followed by the async caveat, then a compact Args block. Every sentence carries information, and the most decision-relevant facts appear first.

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, async mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is complete: it explains the return (UPID), how to track completion, how to preview safely, and every parameter. Nothing an agent needs to call 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so completely — it documents all six parameters, including non-obvious semantics like online=True meaning live migration, node being optional with auto-location, and target coming from config. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema.

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 ('Migrate a VM to another node'), names the return value ('Returns task UPID'), and notes the inverse operation ('migrate back'). An agent can immediately tell this apart from clone/move_disk siblings because the resource scope (whole VM to another node) is 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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: the tool is asynchronous and completion should be polled via task_status, and dry_run=True previews without migrating. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or which conditions favor alternatives, but the polling and preview guidance is clear and actionable.

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