vm_migrate

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations: without confirm it changes nothing, confirm=True applies the migration, and the agent must not set confirm on its own before the user has seen the preview. It also discloses refusal conditions and the noop case, which is exactly the kind of context an agent needs for safe invocation.

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 front-loaded with the primary action, then organized into preview behavior, refusal conditions, and return value. It is somewhat long, but each section provides actionable detail. The refusal list is dense but not redundant with the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return dictionary keys and describing the contents of blast_radius. It also covers edge cases like noop, cross-host shared storage requirements, and preconditions such as running cluster_info. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool safely and interpret the result.

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?

All five parameters already have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by tying confirm to the preview/apply lifecycle and explaining that to_datastore is required when vMotion would cross hosts without shared storage. This helps the agent choose parameter values correctly.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Migrate (vMotion) a VM to another host, optionally with storage vMotion.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vm_clone or vm_reconfigure. It also clarifies the preview/noop/migrated action states, so the tool's core behavior is unambiguous.

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 gives clear operational context: preview with confirm=False, apply with confirm=True, and the instruction to show the preview to the user before deciding. It also says to run cluster_info first for host names. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as vm_clone, but the migration-specific language makes the intended use clear.

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