write_guest_file

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool writes or appends and that protected paths require approval, which is useful, but it does not explain overwrite behavior, whether approvalId is needed for all writes or only protected paths, encoding behavior, or the impact of createParents.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the approval caveat.

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 seven-parameter mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage. The description gives only the basic action and an approval caveat, leaving important behavior and parameter details unexplained for an agent to invoke it safely and correctly.

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 only 29%, so the description needs to compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds some meaning for append and protected-path approval, but says nothing about vm, path, content, encoding, or createParents, leaving most parameter semantics to sparse schema names and defaults.

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 states a specific verb and resource: write or append to a file in the guest. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as read_guest_file, list_guest_files, and delete_guest_file without ambiguity.

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 one useful usage condition: protected system paths need approval. However, it does not explain when to use append versus overwrite, how to obtain the approval, or any explicit alternatives or exclusions beyond what is obvious from the sibling tool names.

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