Clone Guest

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

Annotations are all false and therefore provide no meaningful behavioral safety profile. The description adds one behavioral fact, elevated permissions, and clarifies supported guest types. However, it does not disclose side effects, postconditions, or whether the operation is asynchronous, so it only partially compensates for the absent annotation support.

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 no wasted words. The core action and supported resource types are stated efficiently, and the permission requirement is included as a compact parenthetical.

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?

This is a mutating tool with no output schema and no useful annotation hints, so the description carries the burden of explaining consequences. The one-line description covers the basics but omits clone semantics, error conditions, and any return value information; the schema covers parameter details, making the bare minimum for invocation present.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters (node, vmid, newid, name, hostname). The description only echoes the type parameter's enum values, adding no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Clone' and clearly names the resource ('VM (type=vm) or LXC container (type=lxc)'). It matches the tool name and makes the core operation unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from create-style sibling tools.

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 only usage hint is 'requires elevated permissions,' which is a prerequisite rather than a selection guideline. There is no guidance on when to use clone versus create_vm/create_lxc or other guest operations, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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