pdm_pve_qemu_migrate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses mutation, online migration capability, and default dry-run behavior. However, it does not mention side effects, downtime, or success/failure details, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states purpose and scope, the second explains key parameters. No unnecessary words, highly efficient.

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 tool's moderate complexity (6 params, output schema exists), the description covers the core action, behavior, and execution pattern. It does not cover error handling or return values, but the output schema reduces that need.

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 coverage is only 17%, but the description adds meaning for 'online' and 'confirm' parameters, explaining their roles. Required parameters like vmid, remote, target are not elaborated, but the description compensates partially by clarifying the migration flow.

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 migrates a VM to another node within the remote's cluster via PDM. It uses specific verb (migrate) and resource (VM), and distinguishes from similar tools like pdm_pve_qemu_remote_migrate by specifying 'within the remote's cluster'.

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 explains when to use online behavior and the dry-run flow (PLAN before confirm). However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or mention prerequisites, but the context of within-cluster vs remote is implied.

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