vm_clone

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

The description adds only 'complet ou lié' as behavioral context and does not disclose side effects, long-running operation risk, storage implications, or source VM modification. Annotations provide only basic boolean hints and do not compensate for the missing behavioral detail.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be a complete tool definition.

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?

This is an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions. The one-line description omits essential context such as what full vs linked cloning entails, prerequisites, return behavior, and how it relates to vm_clone_system. It is far below the minimum viable level of completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it only hints at linked mode and an existing source VM. Parameters like start, network, autostart, timeout_ms, and tracking_session_id receive no explanation beyond their names.

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') with a specific resource ('une VM KVM existante') and names the two modes ('complet ou lié'). It clearly communicates the core function, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as vm_clone_system or vm_copy.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like vm_clone_system, vm_copy, or vm_import. There is also no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the source VM must be stopped, or trade-offs between full and linked clones. The agent must infer usage entirely from the action.

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