esxi_ovf_export

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, destructive, non-idempotent, but the description adds traits annotations cannot express: the operation is asynchronous/background, it produces a SHA256 manifest, and it manages a lease lifecycle with Complete/Abort outcomes. It does not explain what the destructive side effects actually are or the failure/cleanup semantics in detail.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences: scope and precondition first, then the follow-up tool chain. The telegraphic second sentence ('operation_status查询，transfer_read_chunk取回files句柄') is terse but earns its place by naming the exact continuation tools.

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 need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with five parameters at 0% schema coverage and dry_run defaulting to true, a caller lacks the information needed to invoke this mutation 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 description coverage is 0% across five parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it names no parameter. Critically, the dry_run flag defaults to true and max_disk_bytes defaults to 8 GiB, and neither their meaning nor expected_name's role is explained anywhere the agent can see.

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 and resource ('完整OVF导出') and enumerates the concrete work: exporting disks, generating the OVF and SHA256 manifest, and completing/aborting the lease. This is unmistakable next to siblings like esxi_ovf_import or esxi_transfer_start.

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 the key prerequisite ('VM须已关机') and routes the agent to the correct follow-up tools (operation_status for polling, transfer_read_chunk for retrieving the files handle). It never states when NOT to use it or contrasts it with alternative export/transfer paths, so it stops short of a 5.

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