directory_push

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states that the tool does not delete unrelated guest files, clarifying the nature of its destructiveness, and it discloses that the VM remains locked by the session, requiring a subsequent vm_unlock call. These are important side effects not evident from the annotations alone.

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, consisting of only two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides critical lock-related instruction. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or ambiguous filler.

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?

While the description covers the main merge-copy behavior and the lock requirement, it omits explanation of the 'overwrite' parameter, which is a key aspect given the destructiveHint annotation. The lack of output schema and schema descriptions means the description should have addressed this parameter. The tool is moderately complex, and this gap makes it only minimally complete.

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?

The description implicitly covers the two required parameters, host_path and guest_path, by referring to 'host directory' and 'guest'. However, it does not explain the 'overwrite' parameter, which is especially important given that the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The behavior of overwrite remains ambiguous, so the description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 'Merge-copy a host directory into the guest' which identifies the specific action (merge-copy), resource (host directory), and target (guest). It also distinguishes itself from a plain copy by explicitly noting it does not delete unrelated guest files, which differentiates it from sibling tools like file_push or directory_pull.

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 on when to use this tool: it is a merge-copy that preserves unrelated guest files, and it notes that the VM remains locked, instructing to call vm_unlock when finished. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks direct comparison to sibling tools.

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