import_vm_file

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by opening with 'DESTRUCTIVE' as a warning and clarifying that confirm must be true to execute, otherwise a preview is returned. It doesn't elaborate on consequences like name conflicts or rollback, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 is concise and front-loaded: it starts with a warning and the main purpose, then provides necessary path format guidance, and finally lists parameter details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. The description covers the essential execution requirements, path format, optional naming, and destructive nature. It could expand on what 'destructive' entails, but overall it is complete enough for a 3-parameter import tool.

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 Args section compensates fully: path is explained with the 'shared://' format and examples, name is marked as optional, and confirm is described as mandatory for execution with preview behavior. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'import' with a resource 'a virtual machine' and clearly specifies the source format 'OVA/OVF file on the NAS'. This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_vm, clone_vm, and create_vm, making the tool's purpose 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?

The description provides clear context by stating the file must already be on a NAS shared folder and mandates the 'shared://' path format. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is specific enough for an agent to determine when this tool is appropriate.

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