deploy_vm_from_ova

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds behavioral detail: parses OVF, creates import spec, uploads VMDKs via HTTP NFC lease, optionally powers on and creates snapshot. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action and uses a clear parameter listing. It is moderately sized with no wasted words. Minor improvement could be using a bulleted list for readability.

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?

Covers core functionality and key parameters. Does not mention error handling, prerequisites (e.g., local file access), timeouts, or return values. Output schema exists, reducing need for return description, but still lacks some operational 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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage. The description lists all 8 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Local file path to the .ova file' for ova_path). This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema, though some parameters like 'target' could be more descriptive.

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 starts with '[WRITE]' and clearly states 'Deploy a VM from a local OVA file.' It then outlines the steps (parses OVF, creates import spec, uploads VMDKs) and optional power-on/snapshot actions. This distinguishes from similar deployment tools like deploy_vm_from_template or batch_clone_vms.

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 implies usage for local OVA deployment but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., deploy_vm_from_template, deploy_linked_clone). No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative names are provided.

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