update_vm_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies the operation as a mutation (update). However, it fails to mention side effects (e.g., VM restart required, authorization needs, whether changes take effect immediately). Basic behavioral context is present but incomplete.

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 clear, front-loaded purpose statement. However, the bulk is a verbose list of all 15 parameters with repetitive 'The...' phrasing. This section could be more concise or structured (e.g., grouping optional vs required). The verbosity detracts from quick scanning.

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 15 parameters (2 required) and no output schema (though context signals indicate one exists), the description covers all parameter names and basic types. But it lacks operational details like whether changes apply immediately, if the VM must be stopped, or what error states might occur. For a mutation tool, more context on behavior and prerequisites is needed.

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. It lists all 15 parameters with brief type hints (e.g., 'Memory in MB', 'CPU type', 'Network config'). For common parameters (e.g., name, memory, cores), this is sufficient. But for complex parameters (net0, agent, hotplug), the explanations are too vague to fully understand expected format or constraints. Overall, adds some value but not comprehensive.

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 starts with 'Update the configuration of an existing VM. Only provided parameters are changed.' This uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing VM'), making the purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like create_vm (creation) and get_vm_config (read).

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 states 'Only provided parameters are changed,' implying partial updates and clarifying idempotency. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives, the context of sibling tools makes the usage clear. A slight lack of explicit exclusions prevents a 5.

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