pve_clone_vm

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. 'Clone a virtual machine' implies a write operation that creates a new VM, but it doesn't mention potential impacts like resource consumption, permissions required, whether it's idempotent, or how it handles errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Clone a virtual machine', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, usage context, or output expectations, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter mapping.

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 100% description coverage, so all 11 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., 'node' vs. 'target') or typical values. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Clone a virtual machine' clearly states the action (clone) and resource (virtual machine), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'pve_clone_container' or 'pve_create_vm'. It lacks specificity about what cloning entails in this context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pve_create_vm' or 'pve_clone_container', nor are prerequisites or typical use cases mentioned. The description alone offers no usage context beyond the basic action.

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