resize_vm_disk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the grow-only constraint, which is important behavioral info. However, it does not disclose whether the VM must be stopped, if the operation is reversible, or other side effects, limiting transparency.

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 highly concise: a two-sentence overview followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or extraneous information.

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 presence of an output schema (context says true), the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers the core operation and the grow-only constraint. It could mention prerequisites like VM existence, but these are generally implied for a simple VM disk operation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds significant value by explaining disk examples ('scsi0', 'virtio0') and size examples ('50G', '+10G'). This helps the agent understand the expected format beyond the schema's bare types.

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 clearly states it resizes a VM disk, with a key constraint 'Can only grow, not shrink'. It also lists parameters with examples, differentiating it from sibling resize tools like 'resize_container_disk' and 'move_vm_disk'.

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 a clear usage guideline: can only grow, not shrink. This tells the agent when to use the tool (to increase disk size) and when not to (to decrease). It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools, but the constraint is sufficient for basic usage decisions.

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