vm_create

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two meaningful traits — networking defaults to off and enabling it requires user approval per RULES.md — but says nothing about what 'force' does, permission requirements, or what 'registered' implies in the system.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the core action before the networking caveat and the next-step pointer. Efficient, though the trailing 'workspace:' clause reads as a loose dangling note rather than a structured parameter statement.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for an 8-parameter creation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves most parameter behavior and mutation semantics undocumented.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies only 'workspace' (the universal-os workspace the VM belongs to) and indirectly 'network'; 'force', 'cpus', 'ram_mb', 'disk_gb', and 'name' semantics are left entirely to the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a registered sandbox VM') plus the artifacts produced (qcow2 disk + config) and the target (reference ISO). This distinguishes it from vm_boot, vm_exec, and other lifecycle siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with snapshot/restore paths for pre-existing VMs.

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?

Provides a sequencing hint ('Call vm_boot next') and a policy constraint ('enabling it needs the user's OK'), which is real routing value. However, it never says when NOT to create (e.g. existing VM → vm_status) or names an alternative for cloning/restoring instead of fresh creation.

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