vm_reconfigure

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: partial-update semantics (omitted fields left untouched), hot-add prerequisites, and the need to power off first if hot-add is unavailable. It also states the return value and error case. These add real context beyond readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage caveats and return behavior. The blank lines and '[WRITE]' tag add minor noise, but every substantive sentence 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 4-parameter reconfiguration tool, the description covers the core operation, partial-update semantics, hot-add prerequisites, power-off fallback, and return/error behavior. Given the presence of an output schema and straightforward parameters, nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, and each parameter already documents whether it may be omitted. The description reinforces the partial-update behavior but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific operation and resource: 'Change a VM's vCPU count and/or memory.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the many sibling VM operations such as power control, snapshots, cloning, and deletion.

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 gives concrete usage context: pass only fields to change, omitted fields are untouched, and hot-add requires both a VM-level enablement and a running guest, otherwise power off first with vm_power_off. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the prerequisite guidance is strong and actionable.

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