esxi_datastore_manage

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds real value beyond that by explaining the safety machinery: default dry-run preview, precise expected_host targeting, explicit write switches, dependency acknowledgment, and request_id-based duplicate protection. These are exactly the mutation-safety details annotations cannot express.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the action roster comes first, then the execution protocol. No filler sentences. The density is a slight trade-off against readability, since the action names are cryptic without the schema.

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 multi-action management tool with an output schema already present, the description covers the key operational requirements (preview-first, host precision, dependency confirmation, idempotency). It stops short of defining each action's semantics, but nothing critical to safe invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 9 parameters, so the description carries the explainer burden. It groups and hints at the roles of expected_host, dry_run, request_id, and the write/acknowledgment switches, but never defines the individual parameters or the allow_disruption / allow_unknown_impact / allow_protected_impact distinctions, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 (datastore) and enumerates the concrete actions it manages (nfs_create, vmfs_create, vmfs_expand, vmfs_extend, remove, local_create, vvol_create, swap_update), so an agent can distinguish it from the read-only esxi_list_datastores. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like esxi_datastore_transfer or esxi_storage_manage, which keeps it below a 5.

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 concrete workflow guidance: run resource_schema/get first, rely on the default preview (dry_run), and complete expected_host / write switches / dependency confirmation before actual execution. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement or direct routing to sibling tools, but the sequencing guidance is clear context.

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