esxi_vm_hardware

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavior ('uses official VirtualDeviceSpec', 'preserves the rest of the VM configuration' – i.e. a partial merge), but omits a critical trait: dry_run defaults to true, so changes are staged rather than applied unless explicitly disabled.

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 tight sentences with the action and affected resources front-loaded, followed by the one behavioral caveat worth stating. No padding, though it could be slightly more explicit about the staging semantics.

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 explained, but this is a destructive mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotation-explained staging behavior. The default-on dry_run and the expected_name guard are prerequisites an agent must know to call it correctly, and neither is stated.

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 5 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only clarifies device_changes (VirtualDeviceSpec format) and says nothing about vm_id, expected_name (evidently a concurrency/identity guard), dry_run, or request_id.

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 names specific verbs (add/remove/edit) and specific resources (virtual disks, NICs, CD-ROM, controllers, PCI devices), so the agent knows exactly what the tool manipulates. It does not, however, differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like esxi_configure_vm, esxi_expand_disk, or esxi_pci_manage.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent is not told how this tool relates to esxi_configure_vm or esxi_expand_disk when modifying disks, nor that device_changes must be built before calling. Usage is only implied by the resource list.

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