vm_apply_console

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states the stopped-VM precondition and backup requirement, but it omits permissions, reversibility, idempotency, failure behavior, and what applying a plan actually changes.

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 definition is a single tightly worded sentence with the key constraint and safety prerequisite front-loaded. There is no unnecessary wording.

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 mutation tool with two required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition is too sparse. It covers the stopped-VM and backup context but leaves out critical parameter meaning and execution behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both required parameters. It hints at a reviewed plan corresponding to plan_id, but it does not explain expected_hash or how the two parameters interact.

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 states a specific verb and resource: apply a reviewed plan, with an explicit precondition that the VM must be stopped. It implies the tool follows review and preparation steps, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with vm_apply_update or vm_prepare_console.

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?

It gives clear usage conditions: apply only while the VM is stopped, and back up its exact configuration first. It does not name alternatives or explain when to use this versus vm_apply_update or vm_rollback_update, but the operational guardrails are explicit.

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