migrate_vm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'migrate' without explaining whether the VM can run during migration (live vs. offline), how local disks are handled, storage requirements, or failure behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 clear sentence with no filler or redundant words. It is appropriately concise for the limited information it conveys.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, optional flags, live migration implications) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the one-sentence description is severely incomplete. It omits parameter semantics, prerequisites, side effects, and return value, making it inadequate for safe and correct invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no explanation for any parameter. Terms like 'node,' 'target,' 'online,' 'storage,' and 'with_local_disks' are left undefined, leaving the agent to guess at their meaning and defaults. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of explanations.

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 'migrate' and clearly states the resource ('a virtual machine') and the destination ('another node in the cluster'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_vm_disk or clone_vm. It is concise and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as move_vm_disk or clone_vm. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., shared storage) or exclusions. There is no context about maintenance windows or impact on VM availability.

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