migrate_container

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether migration is offline/online, prerequisites (like shared storage), potential downtime, or effects on container operation. The boolean parameters suggest nuances (online, force, stateonly) but the description does not explain them.

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?

A single, clear sentence: 'Migrate a container to another node.' Every word contributes to the core purpose, with no filler or redundancy. This is appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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?

For a mutating operation with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is insufficient. It does not address return values, failure modes, prerequisites, or the impact of flags like 'with_local_disks' and 'online'. The description needs more context to be complete given the tool's complexity.

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 100% with descriptions for all 8 parameters (e.g., 'Current node where container is located', 'Target node for migration'). The tool description itself adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Migrate') and resource ('container'), clarifying the operation and target ('another node'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool migrate_vm by specifying container rather than VM.

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 implies usage for container migration (vs. VM migration via migrate_vm) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The behavior is inferred from the tool name and sibling list.

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