pve_move_vm_disk

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. It states the action is a 'move' which implies mutation and potential data transfer, but doesn't mention critical behaviors: whether the VM must be stopped, if it's destructive to the source (hinted by the 'delete' parameter but not explained), performance impact, error conditions, or what happens on failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. No unnecessary words or redundant information are present.

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 mutation tool that moves VM disks (a potentially disruptive operation), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral context, it lacks critical information: prerequisites (e.g., VM state), side effects, error handling, and what the tool returns. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.

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 the schema already documents all 7 parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'disk' and 'storage' are involved in the move. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'format' interacts with storage type) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Move VM disk to different storage' clearly states the action (move) and resource (VM disk) with the destination (different storage). It's specific enough to understand the core function, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like pve_migrate_vm or pve_resize_vm_disk which might involve disk operations in different contexts.

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 (e.g., VM state, storage availability), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like pve_migrate_vm (which moves entire VMs) or pve_resize_vm_disk (which resizes disks). Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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