Move container volume

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

Annotations indicate mutable, non-destructive, non-idempotent, openWorldHint. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations; it doesn't explain the copy-and-delete nature, prerequisites (e.g., container status), or that delete_source controls destruction. Annotations already cover safety profile.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and scope. Every sentence serves a purpose: one states what it does, the second provides a use case.

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?

The description is minimally adequate but lacks details on behavior (e.g., whether container must be stopped, implications of delete_source, or prerequisites). No output schema, so return value is unexplained. Given complexity (6 params, 4 required), more context would help.

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 67% (4 of 6 params described). The description adds context for the 'volume' parameter with examples (rootfs, mp0) but does not significantly enhance meaning for other parameters beyond schema.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Move' and the resource 'LXC volume (rootfs or mountpoint)' to a different storage. It distinguishes from siblings like migrate_container (moves entire container) and move_vm_disk (moves VM disks) by specifying it works on container volumes.

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 a clear usage context: 'Useful for migrating off slow disks.' It implies when to use (improve storage performance). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though the sibling list contains relevant alternatives.

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