esxi_api_transfer

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, readOnly=false, closed-world. The description adds real behavior beyond that: the dry-run/preview default, the requirement for normal and advanced write switches to actually execute, the lease-completion/abort lifecycle, and authentication prerequisites. This is meaningful context on top of the annotation baseline.

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?

Five front-loaded lines that each carry distinct information (mechanism, scoping constraint, write-switch behavior, lease lifecycle, HTTP method mapping) with a closing limits statement. It is appropriately sized for a 9-parameter, destructive transfer tool, with only minor jargon density.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the transfer flow, HTTP verb selection, lease refresh/complete/abort, write-switch gating, and prerequisites. The remaining gap is that a 9-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage does not describe the operation types or source/data parameters, but overall it is complete enough to call 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?

Schema coverage is 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It partially does: it explains lease ('传发现的 HttpNfcLease 引用'), http_method/content_type (OVF streaming uses POST with application/x-vnd.vmware-streamVmdk; guest files use PUT), and touches dry_run (preview default). But operation, source_url, data_base64, and max_bytes receive no explanation, leaving several parameters undocumented in both schema and 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?

The description names a specific resource and mechanism: handling HTTPS URLs returned by GuestFileManager/HttpNfcLease to complete the HTTP phase for guest-file and OVF-NFC transfers. It also clarifies what it is not ('not a one-click OS installer'), which sharpens scope. It does not, however, name a sibling tool it supersedes (e.g. esxi_datastore_transfer or esxi_transfer_start), so differentiation is only partly achieved.

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?

It gives usable context: only connect to the current ESXi guestFile/NFC paths, uploads are preview-by-default while execution needs write switches, and it states prerequisites (guest needs Tools/auth, OVA needs descriptor and disk data first). However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over sibling transfer tools like esxi_datastore_transfer, esxi_transfer_start, or esxi_ovf_import, so routing is left to inference.

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