create_virtual_machine

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates creation (mutation) but omits details like whether it blocks until ready, required permissions, or side effects (e.g., resource consumption). The output schema is not referenced, so return behavior is unclear.

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 very concise at 13 words, front-loading the purpose. It is appropriately brief but could include more structured information without becoming verbose. No wasted words.

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 complexity of VM creation (8 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists but unused), the description is too thin. It lacks information on return value, default behavior, constraints (e.g., required field formats), and failure modes. Competing tools with similar complexity (e.g., create_pvc) likely offer more complete descriptions.

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 the mutual exclusivity of image_url and pvc_name, adding meaning beyond schema titles. However, it ignores 6 of 8 parameters (e.g., cpu_cores, memory, cloud_init_userdata), leaving their semantics entirely to schema titles without added context.

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 creates a VirtualMachine, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_virtual_machines or start_virtual_machine by focusing on creation. The mention of two boot source options (image_url or pvc_name) adds precision.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, such as requiring an existing PVC for pvc_name, or when not to use it (e.g., if the VM already exists). The description merely states the creation method options.

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