console_type_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds that no VMConnect focus is needed and that non-ASCII input is rejected — useful operational context. It does not warn that typed text may execute commands in the guest (the source of the destructive hint), nor describe pacing/timing behavior, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the capability, then the constraint, then the practical note about focus. No 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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain returns; it covers character set, alternative tool, and focus requirement. The one missing piece is typing speed/ordering guarantees, which matters for a keyboard-input tool but is not covered elsewhere.

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 — and it does for the critical 'text' parameter by enumerating exactly what bytes are accepted and what is rejected. 'vm_name' is left undefined but is self-evident.

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?

States a specific verb (type text), the exact transport used (Msvm_Keyboard), and the accepted character set. It also names the sibling to use for Unicode input (guest_exec), so an agent can distinguish this from console_press_keys and guest_exec without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly sets the boundary: use this for printable ASCII/tab/CR/LF, use guest_exec for Unicode, and match the guest keyboard layout. It lacks an explicit when-not regarding console_press_keys for non-text keys, but the primary routing decision is stated.

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