pve_migrate_container

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Migrate' implies a potentially disruptive operation, but the description doesn't mention whether this requires downtime, affects container state, has permission requirements, or what happens on failure. It lacks critical behavioral context needed for safe invocation of a migration 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 perfectly concise at 4 words, front-loading the core action and resource. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy. It follows an optimal verb-noun structure that communicates the essential purpose efficiently.

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 complex migration operation with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what migration entails, potential impacts, success/failure conditions, or return values. The agent lacks sufficient context to understand the operation's consequences and appropriate usage scenarios.

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 100%, so all 8 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the 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 ('Migrate') and resource ('container'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'pve_migrate_vm' by specifying container migration rather than VM migration. However, it doesn't specify what 'migrate' entails in this context beyond moving to another node.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like container state requirements), compare with 'pve_migrate_vm' for VMs, or indicate when migration is appropriate versus other operations like cloning or backup. The agent receives 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.