pve_clone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses mutation, dry-run by default, confirm=True to execute, async return of UPID, and specific constraints for pool and storage parameters. This covers critical behavioral traits.

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 and front-loaded, with the first sentence serving as a clear summary. Every line adds value, and there is no wasted text.

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 10 parameters and no annotations, the description covers some constraints and behaviors but omits prerequisites, error conditions, idempotency, and details on the output (though output schema exists). It is adequate but not thorough.

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 10%, but the description adds meaningful explanations for pool, storage, and the full clone behavior. However, many parameters (vmid, newid, name, node, full, kind, confirm) are left undescribed, relying on schema defaults and titles. It partially compensates but not fully.

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 clones a guest to a new ID, with key behaviors like dry-run default, confirm flag, and async return of UPID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create or migrate, though it doesn't 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?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pve_guest_migrate or pve_create_vm. It lacks 'when not to use' or comparisons with siblings.

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