sylve_vm_migrate

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-reversible mutation. The description adds that the migration is 'live' (no downtime) and that validation is part of the flow, which is real context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about what happens on failure, downtime windows, or whether the VM is left running on the source.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and destination come first. It is arguably too terse for a destructive cluster operation, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent cluster migration with seven parameters and no output schema, and the one-line description leaves out error behavior, the meaning of validate_only, wait/timeout semantics, and what state the VM ends up in. An agent would need to open the schema and guess at the failure semantics.

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 71%, so the key parameters (vm, target, node, context, validate_only) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction guidance for those, and 'wait'/'wait_timeout' are undocumented in both places – a 3 is the correct baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (live-migrate) and resource (VM) plus destination (another cluster node), which an agent can distinguish from sylve_jail_migrate and sylve_vm_show without opening the schema. It stops short of naming the sibling or the scope conditions that select it.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. node must be in the cluster, VM must be running), and no steer toward validate_only versus a full migration. 'Validate and live-migrate' implies a preflight exists but never says when to prefer it.

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