esxi_patch_manage

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: it defaults to preview, demands a precise expected_host, requires write switches and dependency acknowledgement, and supports request_id for dedup — the kind of operational detail 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 sentence, front-loaded with the action list followed by the execution prerequisites, with no filler. It is information-dense but reads as a compressed run-on rather than well-chunked guidance.

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 destructive-execution workflow reasonably. For a 9-parameter destructive multi-action tool, though, the unlisted parameters and the lack of per-action distinctions leave gaps an agent would need to fill elsewhere.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 9 parameters, the description must carry the burden and only partly does: it maps to dry_run (preview), expected_host, the write switches, dependency acknowledgement and request_id. The generic 'arguments' object and the individual switch semantics (allow_disruption vs allow_protected_impact, acknowledged_vm_ids) are not explained, leaving several parameters undocumented.

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 resource (patch) and enumerates the concrete operations (check, scan, stage, install, uninstall, query), so an agent knows the domain precisely. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent workflow tools such as esxi_stage_finalize or esxi_execute_plan, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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 a real prerequisite flow — go through resource_schema/get and a default preview before executing — which implies when to escalate to real execution. It never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use this one, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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