vm_reconfigure

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: prior values are captured so a reverse reconfigure is recorded as the undo token. That undo/reversibility context is genuinely valuable for a destructive mutation and goes beyond the structured hints. It doesn't mention whether a running VM must be restarted for changes to take effect, which is a remaining gap.

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 and the core action, followed by constraints and a clean Args block. Every sentence carries information, though the phrasing is slightly verbose in places.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description supplies the parameter contract, the destructive/atomic behavior, and the dry_run escape hatch. It omits whether a reboot is needed for the change to take effect, which an agent would otherwise have to discover.

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 must carry the full load, and it documents every parameter: vmid, cores, memory (with MiB units), dry_run, target, node. It also explains the omit-to-leave-unchanged convention and node auto-locate behavior. 'target' is only described as 'from config', which is the one thin spot.

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 ('Change a VM's cores and/or memory (MiB)') and tags the operation as a write, which cleanly separates it from disk-related siblings like vm_resize_disk and vm_move_disk. An agent can identify the tool 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 a real precondition ('Provide at least one of cores / memory') and a concrete read/preview path ('Pass dry_run=True to read the current cores/memory and preview the change'). It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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