convert_to_template

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

Annotations already mark this as a mutation (readOnlyHint false). The description adds significant behavioral context by stating the operation is one-way and the guest can no longer be started, only cloned. This goes beyond the annotations, though it omits permission requirements or error conditions.

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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (single parameter, output schema available), the description covers the essential purpose, the prerequisite of a stopped guest, and the irreversible consequence. It is complete for its scope.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 'vmid' parameter. It implies the parameter refers to a stopped VM or container and adds the 'stopped' constraint, but it does not explicitly map the parameter name or explain it beyond that. This meets a minimal viable standard.

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 ('Convert') and resource ('VM or container') to clearly state the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like clone_guest or create_snapshot by the final template state and includes the 'stopped' prerequisite.

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 context is clear: this tool is for converting a stopped guest into a template, and the note 'only cloned from' hints at the subsequent workflow. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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