update_vm_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the partial-update behavior and the semantics of the delete parameter, but it omits side effects, prerequisites (e.g., VM state, permissions), and whether changes require a reboot or are applied immediately.

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 opens with a single-sentence purpose statement followed by a clean, complete argument list. Every parameter earns its place with no filler, and the key behavioral note ('Only provided parameters are changed') is front-loaded.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics well but lacks broader context: no guidance on prerequisites, VM state requirements, failure modes, or how this update interacts with running VMs. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but behavioral and operational context remains incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it lists all 15 parameters with one-line meanings, including units for memory and explicit detail for delete. However, some entries are tautological ('description: Description') and others are vague ('net0: Network config'), so it falls just short of full clarity.

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 states a specific verb ('Update'), a clear resource ('configuration of an existing VM'), and adds the key distinction that only provided parameters are changed. This differentiates it from creation or full-replace operations and from similar container/VM update 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 description implies when to use the tool (modifying an existing VM's configuration) and explicitly notes that only provided parameters are changed, but it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it. No exclusionary guidance for siblings like update_container_config or create_vm is provided.

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