qemu_vm_select

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

Annotations only state that the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds some behavioral context by scoping the effect to the session's QEMU panel and distinguishing it from in-guest control. However, it does not disclose what happens to a previous selection, whether the selection persists, or how it affects subsequent qemu_vm_* calls.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a meaningful scoping boundary between panel-managed VMs and in-guest control. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter stateful selection tool, the description is mostly sufficient, but it omits the downstream effect of the recorded selection and does not mention qemu_vm_unselect as the inverse. Since there is no output schema, a brief note about the result or side effect would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the tool description must carry semantic weight for vm_id. It partially does by identifying the parameter as the managed QEMU VM to be selected/recorded, but it does not explain where valid vm_id values come from or how they relate to qemu_vm_list. With only one simple parameter, this is adequate but not strong.

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 identifies the action ('Record') and the resource ('managed QEMU VM') within the MCP/Admin session's QEMU panel, making the tool's role reasonably clear. It implicitly differentiates itself from listing, status, and unselect siblings by focusing on setting/recording the current selection, though the verb 'record' is slightly indirect.

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 gives clear context: this tool applies to the Admin session's managed QEMU panel, while in-guest MCP control is explicitly excluded ('In-guest MCP control remains the agent's outbound TCP connection'). It does not explicitly name alternatives like qemu_vm_unselect or state 'use before other qemu_vm_* commands,' but the session-selection context implies when it should be used.

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