create_vm

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the mutating nature of the tool, and it does reveal post-creation behaviors like whether the VM starts immediately (start) and whether it boots on host startup (onboot). However, it does not mention permissions, idempotency, side effects on the node, or failure semantics, which are relevant for a creation operation.

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 long but well-structured as an Args list with one line per parameter. It front-loads the core purpose sentence and keeps each parameter entry terse. Some repetition of schema defaults could be trimmed, but for a 22-parameter tool the format is efficient and scannable.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of annotations, the description is largely complete for constructing a VM creation request: it covers required fields, optional settings, defaults, and value formats. It falls short only in usage context and operational expectations, such as what happens after creation beyond the start/onboot flags, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates thoroughly by documenting all 22 parameters. It adds meaningful format context that the schema lacks, such as 'local-lvm:32' for scsi0, 'virtio,bridge=vmbr0' for net0, and acceptable values for ostype and scsihw. This is essential for an agent to construct valid calls.

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 'Create a new QEMU virtual machine', which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and system involved. This distinguishes it from related tools like create_container, start_vm, and update_vm_config without requiring the reader to inspect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use create_vm versus alternatives such as create_container, clone_vm, or update_vm_config. It also does not mention prerequisites like an existing node or storage allocation, so an agent must infer usage context entirely from the tool name.

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