clone_guest

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations, such as linked clones depending on a template and remaining dependent on it, and storage defaulting to the source's. This adds value beyond the false flags in annotations, though it does not cover permissions or failure modes.

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 structured as a concise summary followed by a bullet-style Args list. Every sentence contributes semantic value, and the most important action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a five-parameter tool.

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's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core inputs and dependencies well. It does not describe the output format, but the output schema presumably handles that. Minor gap: no mention of when to prefer create_vm instead, but overall completion is strong.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter's meaning and constraints in the Args block. It clarifies that new_vmid must not already exist, defines full, and specifies storage defaults, exceeding what the bare schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Clone a VM or container into a new guest.' This clearly defines the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_vm or convert_to_template by focusing on cloning an existing guest.

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 context for when to use the tool (to clone a source guest) and explains key decision factors like full vs linked clones. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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