pdm_pve_lxc_migrate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It labels the operation as a mutation but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the original container is removed), live migration behavior, required permissions, or potential downtime. The brief 'MUTATION:' prefix adds minimal value.

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 sentence and efficient in word count. However, it sacrifices crucial details for brevity; it is more under-specified than concisely comprehensive.

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 that an output schema exists but its content is unknown, the description should still outline the operation's effects and any important behavioral traits. It fails to mention return values, failure cases, or the role of PDM, leaving the agent with an incomplete understanding of a complex migration 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 only 17% (1 of 6 parameters documented). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, failing to compensate for the low coverage. Parameters like 'vmid', 'remote', 'target', 'online', and 'confirm' remain unexplained.

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 verb 'migrate', the resource 'container', and the scope 'within the remote's cluster'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool pdm_pve_lxc_remote_migrate by specifying intra-cluster migration, but does not explicitly contrast them.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pdm_pve_lxc_remote_migrate. No prerequisites (e.g., container must be stopped) or context for the 'online' parameter are mentioned, leaving the agent without decision support.

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