clone_vm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It opens with 'DESTRUCTIVE' warning, which is notable for a clone operation. It explains the confirm parameter's behavior: 'Must be true to execute. Returns a preview otherwise.' This gives safety-critical context beyond the schema. It also hints at consistency risks if the VM is running. Lacks details on scope (e.g., disks, network config) but is substantial.

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 compact and front-loaded with a 'DESTRUCTIVE' warning. It uses a clear title, a one-sentence purpose, a usage tip, and an Args list. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the primary operation, prerequisites, and parameter semantics. It might benefit from noting what happens to the VM's disks/snapshots, but the output schema and existing context make this adequate. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: vm_id (source), name (new clone), and confirm (execution gate with preview behavior). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema fields and their defaults.

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 'Clone a virtual machine' and explains it 'Creates a full copy of the VM with a new name.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_vm (new VM) and snapshot tools (incremental states). The specific verb 'clone' and resource 'VM' make 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?

It provides practical guidance: 'The source VM should ideally be stopped for a consistent clone.' This implies the tool is for creating copies and the ideal condition. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., snapshots, export), so it misses explicit 'when-not-to-use' but still gives clear context.

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