qemu_vm_restore

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the bare operation — no mention of whether an existing VM with the same ID gets overwritten, whether the restore is reversible, or what state (stopped or running) the VM is returned in. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes no transparency of its own.

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 a single eight-word sentence with zero filler, and the verb and object are front-loaded. For a one-parameter tool this brevity is appropriate, though it borders on under-specification.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description leaves essential context unstated: what 'broker trash' is, what restoring entails, and what happens if a VM with the same ID already exists. An agent can guess the core operation but cannot anticipate consequences, which matters for a destructive tool.

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 carries the burden of explaining the vm_id parameter, and it does not even mention it. The well-named parameter and its pattern regex in the schema do some work, but the tool description adds zero semantic value for the parameter, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Restore'), a clear resource ('managed VM'), and a precise source ('broker trash'), so an agent can identify the operation. It is implicitly distinguishable from siblings like qemu_snapshot_restore (snapshot vs. VM) and qemu_vm_delete, though 'broker trash' is unexplained domain jargon that prevents a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state that the VM must already reside in the trash, does not contrast with qemu_vm_trash_list or qemu_vm_trash_empty, and offers no preconditions or exclusions. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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