create_vm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While it notes the need for user confirmation, it does not describe whether the VM is started after creation, authorization requirements, error handling for duplicate vmid, or side effects like resource consumption.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the primary purpose. It avoids fluff but could be structured to separate purpose from usage note more clearly. Still, it is efficient and earns its place.

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 complexity (10 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It omits return values, post-creation behavior, prerequisites (e.g., node/storage existence), and error handling, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

Of the 10 parameters, only 4 have schema descriptions (40% coverage). The tool description adds context for the 'iso' parameter (optional attachment) but does not explain the others (memoryMb, cores, diskSizeGb, net0, ostype), which lack documentation in both schema and description.

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 the action ('Create a new QEMU VM') and resource ('empty, optionally with an ISO attached'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_lxc (LXC containers) and clone_resource (cloning). It is specific and uses a strong verb-resource pairing.

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 mentions a workflow requirement ('Requires confirming the configuration with the user before calling'), which provides some usage guidance. However, it lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, such as preferring clone_resource over this for duplicating existing VMs.

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