create_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the operation is IRREVERSIBLE and that the VM can no longer be started after conversion, only cloned. It also explains the confirm parameter behavior: first call without confirm shows a warning. This is strong behavioral disclosure beyond the schema.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with the core action and irreversibility warning, then provides parameter details in a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the key behavioral aspects (irreversibility, confirm flow) and parameter semantics. It could mention what the output looks like, but the output schema likely covers that, so the description is sufficient.

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. It explains vmid as 'The numeric ID of the VM to convert' and confirm as 'Must be true to execute. First call without confirm shows a warning.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic type/default, especially for confirm's two-step behavior.

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 clearly states the action: 'Convert a stopped VM into a template.' It uses a specific verb (convert) and resource (VM), and distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_vm, clone_guest, and list_templates. The irreversible nature is highlighted upfront, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it: when a VM is stopped and you want to make it a template. It also provides a clear prerequisite (VM must be stopped) and a warning about irreversibility. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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