vm_management

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It lists actions but does not disclose side effects (e.g., irreversibility of delete), concurrency behavior, or authorization needs. The description focuses on parameter rules rather than broader behavioral traits.

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 efficient, using one paragraph to cover purpose, actions, alternative tool, and parameter requirements. It front-loads the core purpose and lists actions clearly. Minor improvement could be using bullet points for readability, but the structure is logical and not verbose.

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?

Given the tool has 10 parameters, an output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description covers essential parameter combinations but omits explanation of pagination parameters (limit, offset) and the use_case field. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the missing parameter descriptions lower completeness.

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 explain parameters. It explains that vm_name is required for most actions, clone requires source_vm+new_vm_name, and create requires os_type/memory/disk. It also directs users to system_management for valid os_type values. However, use_case, limit, and offset are not described.

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 'Virtual machine lifecycle management' and lists all supported actions (list, create, start, etc.), making the tool's purpose highly specific. It distinguishes itself from the sibling vm_agentic_workflow by explicitly directing LLM config and sandbox planning to that tool.

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 provides clear guidelines on when to use vm_agentic_workflow instead, and explains parameter requirements per action (e.g., clone needs source_vm+new_vm_name, create needs os_type/memory/disk). However, it does not mention when to use sibling tools like snapshot_management or network_management, so some alternatives are missing.

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