directory_push

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses an important non-obvious behavior: the VM remains locked after the call and requires vm_unlock. It also clarifies that unrelated guest files are preserved, which adds nuance to the destructive hint. No contradiction 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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The core merge-copy behavior and its key guarantee are front-loaded, and the lock/unlock instruction is the only additional context. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is sufficient for the core operation and the critical lock workflow, but it leaves gaps around the overwrite parameter and any result or confirmation behavior. With no output schema and low parameter coverage, the missing overwrite semantics are a notable gap for a destructive-capable tool.

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 only 25%; only vm_name has a schema description. The description adds that host_path and guest_path are directories, but it does not explain the overwrite parameter, path format expectations, or how host_path/guest_path relate to one another beyond the copy direction.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Merge-copy a host directory into the guest.' It also explicitly scopes the behavior with 'without deleting unrelated guest files,' which differentiates it from a replace-style directory push and from siblings like file_push or directory_pull.

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 gives clear usage context: the VM is already locked by this session, and the caller must call vm_unlock when finished. It does not explicitly name alternatives, so there are no exclusion rules, but the context is strong enough for an agent to know the intended workflow.

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