disable_vm_ha

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation itself and does not explain what happens to the VM, whether the change is reversible, or any side effects (e.g., cluster reconfiguration). This is a mutation tool with no behavioral context.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices potentially valuable context. It earns a high score for efficiency, but not perfect due to the lack of additional structure.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only a minimal one-sentence description, this is incomplete for a state-changing operation. Users are left without knowledge of expected outcomes, safety implications, or relationship to HA status tools. More context is needed for confident invocation.

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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters (node and vmid) with clear descriptions, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no supplementary parameter semantics beyond implying that these identify the VM, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (disable) and resource (High Availability for a VM), which distinguishes it from siblings like enable_vm_ha and disable_container_ha. However, it essentially restates the tool name in plain words without adding substantive new information.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., HA must be enabled), consequences, or contrast with enable_vm_ha or get_ha_status. A single sentence offers no context for tool selection.

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