vm_export

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

Annotations provide no positive hints (all false), so the description carries the full transparency burden. It openly discloses destructive sanitization operations in classic mode, the preserving behavior in exam mode, pre/post export tests, firstboot script installation, and the exact generated archive naming/location. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 dense but information-rich, front-loading the main purpose and then detailing modes, tests, and output naming in sequence. It remains reasonably concise for the complexity, though a bulleted structure for the three modes and tests would improve scannability.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no helpful annotations, the description covers the essential context: modes, sanitization, firstboot, tests, and output path. The main gaps are the undocumented force and dry_run parameters and the lack of any return/result information.

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 property descriptions have 0% coverage, so the description adds significant meaning: it explains mode values, operations[] in custom mode, firstboot behavior, and the default output location. However, it does not explain the semantics of force or dry_run, leaving two parameters ambiguous.

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 action ('Exporte une VM KVM'), the artifact format (archive portable .tar.gz), and the distinguishing purpose (sanitization of sensitive data). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like vm_snapshot, vm_copy, and backup_create, which do not produce portable sanitized VM export archives.

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 explains when each mode is appropriate: classic removes users and secrets, exam preserves accounts, custom allows selecting virt-sysprep operations, and firstboot installs the config script. This provides clear contextual usage guidance, though it does not explicitly contrast the tool with sibling backup/export tools or state when not to use it.

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