pve_guest_migrate

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: mutation nature, dry-run vs execution, output contents (PLAN with state/source/target/blast radius), async behavior with task UPID, and specific behaviors for LXC and QEMU online migrations. This is comprehensive.

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 paragraph that is tightly written with no redundant words. Each sentence adds critical information: mutation, dry-run, execution, async, and alternatives. It is front-loaded with 'MUTATION:' and efficiently covers all key points.

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 complexity (7 params, async, different behaviors), the description covers migration type, dry-run, execution, async polling, and differences between LXC and QEMU. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description is complete and actionable.

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 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of confirm (execution vs dry-run) and the implications of online parameter for different guest types. It does not describe all parameters but provides contextual meaning beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'migrate a guest to a different node.' It uses a specific verb ('migrate') and resource ('guest'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by naming alternatives pdm_pve_lxc_migrate and pdm_pve_qemu_migrate.

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool (for migration) and how to use it (dry-run by default, confirm=True to execute). It also provides context on when not to use it (LXC 'online' not zero-downtime, QEMU requires shared storage) and suggests alternatives for PDM-driven migrations.

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