clone_vm

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral information. It states that the tool clones a VM or template but gives no details about side effects, such as whether the source VM is affected, whether a full or linked clone is created (the 'full' parameter exists but is not explained), or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It conveys the core purpose clearly, though it does so with minimal detail, which is appropriate for a high-level description.

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 tool with 7 parameters, 3 required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or operational behavior, making it insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool without additional context.

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 zero coverage of parameter descriptions, and the tool description does not mention any parameters. It does not clarify the meaning of 'full', 'target', 'storage', or the relationship between 'node' and 'vmid'. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Clone') and names the resource ('virtual machine or template'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like migrate_vm, template_vm, and delete_vm. It unambiguously states what the tool does, though it could be slightly more explicit about producing a new VM.

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 the tool is for cloning VMs or templates, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like migrate_vm or template_vm, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the source VM existing or the target node being available. The use case is inferable from the verb, so it's not wholly absent, but there's no explicit guidance.

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