esxi_pci_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 given; the description adds real value by disclosing the required write switches, dependency confirmation, exact expected_host matching, and request_id deduplication for replay safety. This goes meaningfully beyond what the annotations 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 whose clauses each convey distinct information (purpose, actions, pre-flight, execution requirements). It is efficient but runs together several ideas, making it slightly hard to parse.

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 the description does cover the destructive-execution workflow. However, for a 9-parameter, destructive, non-idempotent tool it leaves the 'arguments' payload unexplained and the dependency-confirmation flow only half-specified.

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% for 9 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It adds meaning for expected_host, request_id, dry_run ('默认预览') and the disruption switches, but the central 'arguments' object (and acknowledged_vm_ids) is never explained, leaving key parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 states a specific resource ('专用 pci 管理') and enumerates the supported operations (configuration_update, refresh), which lets an agent separate it from the numerous generic *_manage siblings. It stops short of explaining what 'configuration_update' actually mutates, but the verb+resource is unambiguous.

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 prescribes a concrete pre-flight workflow – '先 resource_schema/get 和默认预览' – pointing at sibling tools (esxi_resource_schema/get) and the default dry-run preview before real execution. This is clear context for when/how to use it, though no explicit when-not or alternative tool is named.

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