vm_migrate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the live nature of the move, that the real source host is captured before the move, and that the recorded undo is replayable (and that dry_run records no undo). It stops short of stating failure behavior or disruption impact.

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 risk tag and core action, followed by the inverse/undo note and a compact args list. Every line earns its place, though the Args block is somewhat list-like rather than prose.

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, the description supplies the undo/replay semantics, the dry-run escape hatch, and parameter sourcing. Remaining gaps (failure modes, permissions, rate limits, return shape) are minor and partly covered by the destructive annotation.

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 four parameters with meaning: vm_id/host_id as uuids with pointers to vm_list/host_list, dry_run as a no-undo preview, and target as a config name that is omitted for the default. It lacks uuid format details but compensates well for the coverage gap.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource ('Live-migrate a VM to another host') with a risk tag, and it explicitly declares its inverse relationship ('migrate back'), which distinguishes it from lifecycle siblings like vm_start/vm_stop. An agent can tell what this tool does 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?

It explains when to use dry_run (preview with no undo recorded) and points to vm_list and host_list for sourcing the required ids. It does not name an explicit alternative or a when-not-to-use case, but the operational context is clear.

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