guest_write_file

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the double-confirmation safeguard (overwrite + confirm_path) needed to clobber existing files, though it says nothing about permissions or error behavior.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the safety constraint second. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent write tool with six parameters at 0% schema coverage, the safety guard is covered and an output schema exists to handle returns. The unaddressed create_parent flag and the lack of any note on failure modes keep it only adequate.

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; it clarifies guest_path, overwrite, and the overwrite/confirm_path coupling well. However, it is silent on create_parent, vm_name, and content_base64, leaving a meaningful gap for a 6-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Write base64 content to an absolute guest path') and includes the content encoding, so an agent immediately knows what it does. It is implicitly the write counterpart of guest_read_file, though it never names the sibling.

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 gives a concrete conditional: existing files require overwrite=true plus confirm_path equal to guest_path, which tells the agent when a naive call will fail and how to proceed. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use the tool.

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