Cloud-Init Configuration

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that regenerate 'requires elevated', which is permission context not in annotations. However, it does not explicitly warn that regenerate overwrites or destroys the existing cloud-init drive, which would be valuable given the destructive hint. It adds a bit but not much beyond 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?

The description is a single sentence with pipe-separated action definitions. It is front-loaded with the purpose and packs the essential information without fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 multi-action tool with no output schema, the description covers the three actions, their specific parameters, and a permission note. It does not explicitly state that dump_type is only relevant for dump, but the inline text implies it. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke each action.

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 100%, so parameters are documented. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of the action enum and how dump_type maps to dump (user|network|meta). It also clarifies that regenerate is separate and requires elevated, which the schema does not convey. This goes beyond the baseline.

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 description states a specific resource ('cloud-init for a QEMU VM') and enumerates three explicit actions (get, dump, regenerate) with their behaviors. This clearly differentiates it from the many sibling tools, which are about nodes, clusters, guests, etc. The verb 'Manage' is generic, but the action breakdown makes the purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description explains what each action does, which implies when to use the tool (whenever cloud-init for a VM needs handling). However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. For instance, it doesn't mention that guest config updates are separate. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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