vm_guest_upload

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive behavior (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the '[WRITE]' tag and the dependency on VMware Tools, but does not disclose other behaviors like overwrite strategy or error handling. This adds some value but leaves gaps.

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 and front-loaded with the core action and WRITE tag. The arg list is structured as a bullet-like list with each parameter on a new line. There is no fluff; every sentence adds value.

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 6 parameters and existing output schema, the description covers the action, prerequisites, and all parameters. However, it omits behaviors like whether existing files are overwritten or if directories are created, which could be relevant for an agent. Overall, it is mostly complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's role. For example, it clarifies that guest_path is the destination inside the guest, username defaults to 'root', and target is optional. This provides crucial meaning beyond the schema's property names.

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: 'Upload a file from local machine to a VM via VMware Tools.' It uses a specific verb ('upload') and resource (file from local to VM), and the title prefix 'vm_guest_' combined with the write action distinguishes it from siblings like vm_guest_download.

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 provides a clear context for when to use this tool (to upload a file to a VM) and includes a prerequisite ('Requires VMware Tools running in the guest OS'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to differentiate from siblings.

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