pve_guest_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, dry-run behavior, async nature (returns a UPID), and specifics about LXC vs QEMU. It mentions 'honest blast radius' for LXC online migrations. However, it doesn't cover permissions, idempotency, or error conditions.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence adds necessary context. No wasted words.

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?

The description explains the core behavior, dry-run, and async nature, and an output schema exists to cover return values. However, it lacks details on required parameters (vmid, target) and optional ones like kind and node, leaving gaps for an agent to understand how to properly invoke the 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 14%, meaning only one parameter has a description in the schema. The description mentions vmid, target, online, and confirm but does not explain their formats, constraints, or default values in detail. It does not describe the 'kind' or 'node' parameters. With 7 parameters and poor schema coverage, the description should compensate more.

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 starts with 'MUTATION: migrate a guest to a different node', clearly stating the action and resource. It covers both LXC and QEMU, distinguishing it from sibling migrate tools that are more specific (pdm_pve_lxc_migrate, 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 explains the dry-run default and the need to set confirm=True to execute, and warns about the behavioral differences between LXC and QEMU migrations (e.g., LXC online migration is not zero-downtime, QEMU requires shared storage). It does not explicitly compare with sibling migration tools but provides clear context for using this tool.

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