vm_import

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by warning 'Opération potentiellement destructive', and adds meaningful behavioral details: pre-import integrity tests, post-import verification, new UUID/MAC generation, default disk copy location, and SSH wait when start is set. It doesn't detail the exact destructive consequences, but the warning plus checks supply solid context.

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 every sentence adds value: import source, validation steps, generated identity, default disk destination, start behavior, and a warning. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no filler.

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 potentially destructive tool with no output schema, the description gives a strong overview: input, validation, side effects, and options. However, it lacks any indication of return values or success/failure reporting, and it leaves dry_run behavior unexplained, which is a minor but real completeness gap.

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%, so the description must compensate for five parameters. It indirectly covers archive_path, start, and the default pool_dir, but it does not explain dry_run or new_name, nor how name validation or pool override behaves. This is a meaningful gap.

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 ('Importe'), a specific resource ('une VM KVM'), and the exact input source ('une archive exportee par vm_export'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vm_export, vm_clone, and vm_copy without requiring schema inspection.

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?

It states that the tool is for importing from an archive produced by vm_export and adds useful behavioral conditions such as 'Avec --start' and pre/post-import tests. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives like vm_clone, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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