vm_clone

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

Annotations indicate non-readOnly (write), non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds value by specifying the default placement behavior, the power_on option, and the target parameter for connection. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond structured fields.

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: a brief summary line followed by a structured parameter list. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently uses markdown-like formatting.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, the description covers all parameters, defaults, and basic behavior. It could mention potential side effects (e.g., cloning time) but is sufficiently complete given the annotations and output schema presence.

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 listing each parameter with clear explanations (e.g., 'vm_name: Source VM (or template) name'). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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 'Clone a VM' with a [WRITE] prefix, specifying the core action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like batch_clone_vms and deploy_linked_clone by detailing the full clone behavior and optional placement parameters, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when to omit to_host/to_datastore ('lands on source's host+datastore'), providing some guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like batch_clone_vms or deploy_linked_clone, leaving the agent to infer when to use this tool over them.

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