copy_to_guest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action, with no information about destructive behavior (overwrite defaults to true), permissions needed, error handling, or side effects. The description is minimal.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful context. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool but could include more detail without becoming verbose.

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 tool has 3 parameters (2 required), no annotations, and an output schema that is not referenced in the description, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. The tool is simple but the description lacks contextual information needed for safe and correct invocation.

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% and the description offers no explanation of the three parameters. The 'local_path' and 'remote_path' are mentioned implicitly as source and destination, but no format, restrictions, or allowed values are provided. The 'overwrite' boolean is not described at all.

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 clearly states the specific verb 'copy' and identifies the resource as 'a file from the host running this MCP server to the Windows guest'. It distinguishes from sibling 'copy_from_guest' by specifying directionality.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies usage for copying files to the guest, but does not state prerequisites, alternatives, or context. The distinction from 'copy_from_guest' is clear from the name but not elaborated.

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