apply_vm_tag

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that existing tags are preserved (additive), which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., duplicate tags), rate limits, or failure behavior. The [WRITE] label reinforces the annotation, but more depth is warranted.

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: a purpose statement, a key behavioral note (preserve existing tags), a prerequisite tip, and a structured Args section. Every sentence provides value 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 (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, prerequisite, parameters, and core behavior. It lacks a description of return values or error handling, but with no output schema this is a minor gap. Annotations partially fill the behavioral context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains each parameter (vm_id, tag_scope, tag_value, target) with examples (e.g., 'env', 'production') and notes that vm_id comes from list_vm_tags. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 the action (apply), the resource (NSX tag to a virtual machine), and explicitly notes it is additive (preserving existing tags). The '[WRITE]' prefix and contextual detail distinguish it from sibling tools like list_vm_tags.

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 explicitly advises using list_vm_tags first to obtain the vm_id, providing a clear prerequisite. It implies this tool is for adding tags, but does not explicitly cover when to use alternatives for removal or listing, though the context of siblings suggests those exist.

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