qemu_vm_create

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

The annotations already indicate destructive=true and readOnly=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those flags. It discloses that the VM is created locked by this session, that disk_path is broker-host-local, and that remote-media upload is not yet supported. This gives the agent important operational knowledge about post-conditions and limitations without contradicting any annotation.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful information. There is no fluff or repetition. It efficiently communicates the action, a constraint, and an important post-condition.

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?

Despite having a clear high-level description, the tool is complex with 13 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. The description covers the high-level behavior and locking but omits any guidance on parameter semantics, possible return values, failure modes, or lifecycle interactions with other qemu_vm_* tools like qemu_vm_start. It is not sufficiently complete for the schema's complexity.

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%, and the description provides no parameter-level explanations beyond mentioning disk_path. With 13 parameters, including nested objects like overrides and profile_overrides, the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation. The agent is left with no guidance on what cpus, memory, profile, acceleration, or other fields mean or how they should be used.

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 function: 'Import a broker-local disk into a new managed qcow2 QEMU VM.' It uses a specific verb ('Import') and resource ('new managed qcow2 QEMU VM'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like qemu_vm_start, qemu_vm_update, or qemu_vm_delete. The additional context about disk_source being broker-local further clarifies the exact scope.

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 clear usage context by specifying that disk_path must be broker-local and that remote-media upload is unavailable. It also gives a concrete follow-up instruction: 'call vm_unlock when finished.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or conditions where another tool should be used, the context is sufficient for selecting this tool for local-disk VM creation.

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