vm_protect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds the non-structured "risk=medium" severity tag, which is genuinely useful context. But it does not explain the destructive aspect of an operation that superficially reads as additive association, nor whether re-associating overwrites existing policy membership.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation tag and a one-line purpose, followed by a compact Args block. Every line contributes; the Python-docstring formatting is slightly ceremonial but not wasteful.

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 destructive-prone mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and all params but is silent on consequences: whether existing policy associations are replaced, whether the action is reversible, and what a successful call returns or triggers. Adequate but incomplete for a write operation.

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 carries the full burden, and it documents all three parameters: vm_ext_id (sourced from vm_list), policy_ext_id (from protection_domain_list), and target (PC target name from config, omit for default). The sourcing provenance and the default-omission rule add real meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Associate a VM with a protection policy." This is clearly distinguishable from sibling write operations like snapshot_create, pd_failover, and vm_clone. The [WRITE][risk=medium] prefix further signals the operation class.

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 by pointing to prerequisites ("as returned by vm_list", "as returned by protection_domain_list"), which helps the agent source valid extIds. However, it never states when to use vm_protect versus alternatives like pd_failover or snapshot_create, nor any exclusions or preconditions.

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