Submit inline file bytes to VirusTotal

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

Annotations already say the call is non-read-only and destructive, but the description adds substantial context: content is not confidential and may be shared, no interactive confirmation is requested, bytes are visible to the MCP host, credentials are not in arguments, and the tool never treats content as a path or downloads a URL. These details materially shape invocation expectations.

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?

The description front-loads the core definition and then adds only high-value operational and security context. Every sentence earns its place: size limits, privacy, alternatives, recovery, and follow-up. It is dense but not bloated.

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?

For a submission tool with no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and only minimal annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent what to send, how to format it, what limits apply, what alternatives exist for larger files, how to handle uncertainty, and what to do with the returned analysis ID.

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, the description carries the burden and does so well: it clarifies that content_base64 must be canonical base64, that the SHA256 must match the decoded bytes, and that decoded size must not exceed 24,000,000 bytes. It also warns against interpreting content as a filesystem path, which prevents a common misuse.

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 first sentence states a specific action and resource: 'Submit canonical base64 bytes matching SHA256' to VirusTotal, and the size bound is made explicit. It also distinguishes itself from submit_local_file by describing when the inline submission applies vs. the local-file sibling.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: use submit_local_file or the binary HTTP channel for larger files, avoid repeating the POST when uncertain, recover via get_submission, and follow up via get_analysis. It also notes existing reports are returned without a new analysis, which helps an agent decide whether to call this tool at all.

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