file_push

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds behavioral context about the verified temporary-file commit and the VM lock state, going beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core action and then provide the essential lock/unlock context. 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 tool's simplicity, no output schema, and presence of annotations, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: the copy operation, the safety mechanism, and the lock lifecycle. It lacks details on return values or failure modes but these are not necessary given the context signals.

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 must compensate. It implies host_path is the source and guest_path the destination, but does not detail overwrite semantics or the commit process's effect on parameters. Parameter names are self-explanatory but limited beyond that.

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 a specific verb 'Copy' with clear resource relationship 'host file into the guest', and mentions 'verified temporary-file commit' which adds specificity. This distinguishes it from file_pull (guest to host) and directory_push.

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?

It provides clear context that the VM remains locked and instructs to call vm_unlock when finished, which guides usage flow. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, it establishes when this tool is appropriate (while locked) and the required follow-up.

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