vm_move_disk

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the operation is asynchronous and returns a task UPID, and it conditionally records a reverse move as an undo token when source storage is known — useful recovery information an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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 marker, purpose, return value, and async flag before any detail, which is good structure. Minor redundancy: dry_run is explained both in the prose paragraph and again in the Args list, costing a sentence that could have carried other information.

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 7-parameter destructive, async mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, that it is async with a UPID, the undo-token behavior, and every parameter's meaning. It stops short of stating permissions, whether the VM must be powered off, or how the task result should be polled.

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 parameter burden, and it documents all seven parameters with meaningful semantics — notably 'delete: Remove the source copy after the move completes' and 'node: omit to auto-locate the VM'. It also gives a concrete disk-key example ('scsi0'); only 'target' remains vaguely defined ('Proxmox target name from config').

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: '[WRITE] Move a VM disk to another storage', which is unambiguous and separable from siblings like vm_migrate (whole VM) and vm_resize_disk (size change). It also states the return value ('Returns task UPID') and the async nature in the first line.

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 one concrete usage condition ('Pass dry_run=True to read the disk's current placement and preview the move') and notes the undo token is only recorded when the source storage is known. However, it never states when to choose this over vm_migrate or vm_resize_disk, nor any preconditions (e.g. VM must be stopped, storage must be shared).

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