esxi_stage_upload

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that it creates a private staging handle, that write_chunk and finalize follow, and that arbitrary server local paths are rejected. It does not explain handle lifetime, cleanup, or auth requirements, but it adds meaningful workflow and safety context.

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 front-loaded sentence: purpose first, then follow-up workflow, then an exclusion. It is dense but has no filler and every clause contributes useful information.

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 value explanation is not needed. However, with 0% schema description coverage on four parameters and no explicit usage alternatives, the definition is incomplete for correct invocation. The agent lacks enough detail about how to call it properly.

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 four parameters (filename, total_bytes, dry_run, expected_sha256), so the description carries the full burden. It mentions none of them, leaving the agent unable to infer required formats, dry_run behavior, or hash semantics. This fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('创建私有大文件暂存句柄') and names the follow-up tools write_chunk and finalize, clarifying the workflow. It also constrains the input by saying no arbitrary server local paths are accepted. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 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?

Implies this is the first step in a staged upload because it mentions subsequent write_chunk and finalize calls. It does not state when to prefer this over alternatives such as esxi_transfer_start or esxi_datastore_transfer, nor does it list prerequisites. Usage is only implied.

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