export_vm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It flags the tool as DESTRUCTIVE and explains the confirm gate and preview return, but it does not elaborate on what destructive entails (e.g., overwriting files, affecting the VM). This is helpful but incomplete.

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, starting with a warning, followed by a one-sentence summary, and an args list. Every part earns its place with no unnecessary content.

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 has an output schema and a relatively straightforward export operation, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and safety behavior, but lacks prerequisites like VM state or permissions, which is a minor 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?

The description explains all three parameters, including a path example and the confirm behavior, which the schema lacks. This meaningfully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though more detail on path constraints could be added.

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 exports a virtual machine to a NAS path, specifying the verb 'export' and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like import_vm_file and clone_vm by describing the export action and destination.

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 provides usage guidance by requiring confirm=true for execution and explaining the preview behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like clone_vm or import_vm_file. The purpose is clear, but no comparative usage context is offered.

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