vsphere_reconfigure_vm

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

The annotations already signal mutation (readOnlyHint=false), but the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: the requirement for permission mode 'write', the power-state constraint, and the 'only supplied fields are changed' partial-update semantics. These are not inferable from the annotations alone.

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 well-structured: a concise introductory paragraph followed by a per-parameter list. Every sentence earns its place—no redundant fluff, and the format is easy to scan.

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 complex mutation tool with 7 parameters, the description covers the purpose, usage conditions, permissions, and all parameter semantics. Return values are handled by the output schema, so no critical context is missing.

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 'Args' block in the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter in detail—including the VM identification formats, the divisibility constraint between cores_per_socket and cpu_count, the MiB unit for memory, and the wait/timeout semantics.

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 accurately states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('a virtual machine') and identifies the exact attributes (CPU count, memory size, notes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vsphere_change_vm_power_state or snapshot operations.

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 gives an explicit precondition: powered off unless hot-add is enabled, and notes that only supplied fields are changed. While it does not explicitly list alternative tools, this context clearly indicates when the tool is applicable.

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