Upgrade migration tunnel to WebSocket

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent. The description adds 'upgrade' implying a mutation, but does not explain side effects, failure conditions (e.g., if no existing tunnel), or success criteria. Annotations reduce the burden but the description adds minimal behavioral context.

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 short sentence, which is concise but omits essential information like parameter details and usage context. It is not optimally structured for an agent to use effectively.

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 tool has 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, but the description provides no context on preconditions, return values, or the nature of the upgrade. Given the complexity of migration tunnels, the description is incomplete.

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?

No parameter descriptions in the schema (0% coverage) and the description does not explain the parameters (node, port, vmid, ticket). The agent cannot infer their purpose or usage from the description alone.

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 clearly states the action ('upgrade'), the resource ('existing migration tunnel'), and the target ('to a WebSocket'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'vm_mtunnel' which likely handles other tunnel operations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing tunnel), when not to use it, or compare to sibling tools like 'vm_mtunnel'.

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