esxi_ovf_import

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it validates mappings before transfer, uploads via background NFC, completes the lease, and on failure issues Abort while leaving existing VMs intact. This rollback/abort behavior is exactly the kind of nuance annotations cannot convey.

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, front-loaded sentence covering the pipeline and the disks mapping. No filler, though the compressed style borders on telegraphic and could be slightly clearer about the destructive/rollback nuance.

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 no explanation, and the description covers the pipeline plus rollback behavior. However, with 12 params at 0% schema coverage, the semantics of most inputs remain undocumented, leaving a real gap for a complex, non-idempotent, destructive operation.

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 12 parameters (5 required, nested objects), so the description carries the full burden. It explains only the disks mapping (OVF path -> source_job_id or HTTPS source_url); the remaining eleven parameters, including dry_run, accept_warnings, deployment_option, expected_host, and network_mappings, get no semantic explanation.

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 ('完整OVF导入' – full OVF import) and enumerates the internal stages it performs (descriptor/network/datastore/file-mapping validation, NFC upload, lease completion). It is cleanly distinguishable from the sibling esxi_ovf_export.

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 implies the use case (importing an OVF/OVA appliance) and notes failure handling, but never says when to prefer this over siblings like esxi_stage_upload, esxi_transfer_start, or esxi_vm_register, nor states prerequisites such as required permissions or a prior staging step. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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