install_guest_agent_virsh

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it warns 'DESTRUCTIVE', discloses that the QNAP SSH password will be visible in MCP client logs, explains the method is less reliable than SSH, and admits success cannot be easily verified. It also covers credential fallback behavior.

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 front-loaded with a warning, then proceeds logically: mechanism, prerequisites, security caveat, alternative, fallback behavior, and parameter list. Each sentence adds necessary context, and the bulleted args section is scannable. No wasted words.

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?

This is a complex tool involving SSH credentials, destructive actions, and fallback logic. The description covers prerequisites, security implications, reliability trade-offs, credential resolution, and the confirm/preview flow. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The guidance is comprehensive.

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%, so the description compensates fully. Every parameter is explained: vm_id, qnap_ssh_username/password with defaults/fallbacks, os_family with 'debian'/'redhat' choices, and confirm as a gate for execution. The preview behavior when confirm is false is also described.

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 opens with 'Install QEMU guest agent on a VM via QNAP virsh console', providing a specific verb, resource, and method. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool install_guest_agent_ssh by explaining the difference in approach (virsh serial console vs. direct SSH).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: when the VM is not SSH-accessible and its IP is unknown. It names the alternative 'install_guest_agent_ssh' and even explains why you'd choose one over the other. The prerequisite 'The VM must be running' is stated early.

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