vm_clone_system

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

The description includes a warning that the operation is potentially destructive, which aligns with the destructiveHint=true annotation. It does not add much beyond the annotation, such as what specifically may be destroyed, whether downtime is involved, or whether dry_run prevents all side effects.

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 an explicit warning. It is concise and every word contributes to understanding the core purpose and risk.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter semantics, the description is far from sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks prerequisites, operational effects, return behavior, and any explanation of the dry_run safety mechanism.

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 0% and the description provides no explanation of any of the 8 parameters. The agent gets no guidance on cpus, memory, disk_size, dry_run, hostname, username, timeout_ms, or name beyond the raw schema constraints.

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 states a specific verb and resource: clone the entire host system into a bootable KVM VM. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vm_clone, which presumably clone an existing VM, and from backup/export operations.

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 intended use is implied by the text: use this when you want a full host-system clone to a KVM VM. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative to prefer, such as vm_clone or vm_export.

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