debug_guest_prepare

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial context the annotations cannot: the host must have ALLOW_DEBUGGER set, guest credentials are needed, the VM must be Running, and the change only takes effect after a deliberate reboot. That post-state disclosure is exactly the kind of side-effect information a mutation tool needs.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the capability, then prerequisites, then the reboot consequence. No filler; only minor friction from the dense phrasing of the first clause.

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 annotations covering the destructive profile and an output schema covering return values, the description fills the remaining gaps well: host precondition, VM state, credentials, and the deferred reboot. Left unstated are whether the prior debug configuration is overwritten and how to undo the change.

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 carry parameter meaning, but it only names confirm_vm (already marked required in the schema) without explaining its expected value or how it relates to vm_name. It also surfaces ALLOW_DEBUGGER, which is not a parameter, potentially confusing an agent about what to pass.

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 (Enable) and a precise resource (fixed COM1/115200 guest BCD debugging via PowerShell Direct), plus the required VM state (Running). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling debug_serial_prepare, so the agent must infer which debug variant to pick from the channel name alone.

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?

"while the VM is Running" and the requirement list (ALLOW_DEBUGGER, guest credentials, confirm_vm) give gating preconditions, and "a deliberate later reboot is required" signals follow-up work. However, there is no explicit alternative or when-not guidance, so routing between this and debug_serial_prepare is left implied.

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