file_push

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by explaining the verified temporary-file commit mechanism and the session lock lifecycle, which the annotations do not convey. There is no contradiction with the 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 two tight sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and an essential lock-related instruction added right after. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 covers the main purpose, the commit strategy, and the lock lifecycle, which are the most critical operational facts. However, given the destructive nature, no output schema, and low parameter documentation, it leaves out overwrite semantics, path details, and when to choose alternative tools.

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% because only vm_name has a description, and the tool description does not compensate for host_path, guest_path, or overwrite. It implies host_path is the source and guest_path is the destination, but it does not explain path semantics, overwrite behavior, or other constraints.

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 ('Copy') and resource ('a host file into the guest'), and adds a distinctive mechanism ('verified temporary-file commit'). It clearly identifies what the tool does and is easily distinguishable from related tools like file_pull and directory_push.

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 clearly conveys the operational context: the VM is locked during this operation and vm_unlock must be called afterward. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer alternatives such as directory_push for directories, so it lacks full when/when-not routing.

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