create_vm

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

Annotations are uninformative (all false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core creation behavior, the uniqueness requirement for vmid, the boot disk specification, and that iso is attached as ide2. It does not discuss failure modes or permission requirements, but the primary side effects are covered.

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 compact, labeled list from vmid to extra, with each line dedicating one sentence to meaning and example. The opening sentence establishes purpose, and there is no redundant or promotional text.

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?

Despite 11 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description provides all necessary invocation details: required parameters, optional parameters with defaults, format examples, and a prerequisite check. It also mentions the output behavior via the start flag, though the output schema presumably covers return values.

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 coverage, the description fully documents all 11 parameters with types, defaults (e.g., bridge=vmbr0), units, and concrete examples (e.g., 'local-lvm:32'). This goes far beyond the bare schema and enables correct invocation.

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?

Description opens with 'Create a new QEMU virtual machine' – a specific verb and resource. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like create_container (container creation) and clone_guest (cloning existing VMs).

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 implies usage for new VM creation but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like create_container or clone_guest. It does include a prerequisite ('check list_guests first') which offers some guidance, but no explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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