esxi_license_manage

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds value beyond them: a default preview mode, precision on expected_host, required write/dependency acknowledgements, and request_id to prevent duplicate execution. It does not explain what exactly gets destroyed, but the safety workflow is well disclosed.

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?

A single dense sentence with the purpose and the operation list front-loaded, followed by the execution requirements. No filler, though the compressed Chinese phrasing packs several distinct behaviors into one clause without breaking them out.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 9-parameter destructive tool with 0% schema coverage, the description only partially documents the parameters, leaving a meaningful gap an agent must guess at.

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 full burden. It names expected_host, request_id and hints at dry_run via '默认预览', but leaves action values, arguments, acknowledged_vm_ids, allow_unknown_impact and allow_protected_impact entirely unexplained – half the parameters remain opaque.

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+resource (license management) and enumerates the supported operations (add, remove, update, labels_update). '专用 license 管理' clearly separates it from sibling management tools like network_manage or storage_manage, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with any specific sibling.

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?

Gives a concrete workflow: call resource_schema/get first and use the default preview, then execute with a precise expected_host, write switch and dependency confirmation. This tells the agent the conditions for safe invocation, though it stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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