migrate_guest

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

This is a migration operation, which is inherently destructive/mutating. There are no annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It does disclose the behavior of the 'confirm' parameter: 'First call without confirm shows a warning.' It also clarifies what 'online' does: 'Keeps the guest running.' This is helpful because the schema only says 'default: true' with no explanation. It could be improved by mentioning prerequisites (e.g., shared storage, cluster membership) or consequences (e.g., downtime for offline migration).

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, using a bullet-like structure with each parameter explained in one line. It front-loads the purpose. No wasted words. Each sentence adds value.

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 that this is a migration tool with no annotations, the description does a good job covering key aspects: purpose, parameters, and the confirm flow. It lacks some operational details like error conditions or prerequisites, but it provides enough for an agent to use it safely. The presence of an output schema might help, but we don't see its content. The score reflects that a few more details (like what happens on failure, or requirements for shared storage) would make it complete.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description must fully compensate. It does: it explains 'vmid' as the numeric ID, 'target_node' with an example, 'online' with behavior (keeps guest running), and 'confirm' with the warning behavior. This is a strong compensation. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explain the format of vmid (e.g., 100-199 for VMs) but it's a standard term.

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 tool's purpose: 'Live migrate a VM or container to another node in the cluster.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like clone_guest or backup operations. It also mentions both VMs and containers, which adds specificity.

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 this tool: when you need to move a guest to another node. It notes the difference between online vs offline migration. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives. It says 'Live migrate...' but doesn't discuss scenarios where offline migration would be preferable.

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