vm_prepare_console

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose an important behavioral trait: preparing without modifying or stopping the VM. It still omits whether preparing creates artifacts, requires a running VM, has side effects, or what the reviewable output actually is.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, scope, and safety constraint efficiently.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin. It does not explain what is produced for review, how the prepared change is consumed, or how this tool relates to vm_apply_console and vm_review.

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 description does not mention either parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, an agent gets no explanation of what `vm` accepts or how `port` affects the prepared console change; 'localhost console' only weakly hints at a port-related meaning.

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, 'prepare,' and resource, 'localhost console change,' and clarifies that it does not modify or stop a VM. This helps distinguish it from the sibling vm_apply_console, though the exact nature of a 'console change' remains somewhat abstract.

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 wording implies this is the preparatory step before an apply or review flow, especially through 'reviewable' and the contrast with modifying/stopping a VM. However, it does not explicitly name vm_apply_console or vm_review, nor does it state prerequisites or when not to use it.

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