batch_deploy_from_spec

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

Discloses non-obvious execution behavior: VMs deploy sequentially, one VM's failure does not stop the rest, and a per-VM status dict is returned. This goes beyond the annotations, which only indicate write/non-idempotent behavior.

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 dense but well-organized: purpose first, usage guidance second, spec semantics and failure behavior next, and Returns clearly delimited. Every sentence earns its place for a complex batch operation.

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 only two parameters, the description fully covers target selection, spec file meaning, YAML channel semantics, defaults/overrides, execution order, failure isolation, and return format. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds essential meaning to spec_path by explaining the YAML contract: source/template/linked_clone/ova/iso keys, defaults block, and per-VM overrides. This is critical semantic content absent from the schema's one-line path description.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+method: 'Deploy multiple VMs in one call from a declarative YAML spec file.' It clearly separates itself from single-VM siblings by naming deploy_vm_from_template, vm_clone, deploy_vm_from_ova, and deploy_linked_clone as alternatives.

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?

States when to use it ('fleet provisioning (several VMs, shared defaults)') and when not to ('for a single VM prefer ...'). It also explains channel selection via spec keys, so the agent understands the tool covers multiple deployment modes from one spec.

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