rbd_image_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true, so the write/non-idempotent nature is covered. The description adds the risk=medium tag but omits behaviorally important facts for a create operation: name-collision handling, required auth, and size constraints.

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 risk/write tag is front-loaded and the Args block is tight with no filler. Slightly more verbosity than strictly necessary, but every line maps to a distinct parameter or constraint.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should say more about outcomes for a mutating create (e.g., what a successful call returns, or failure on duplicate names). It covers inputs adequately but leaves the result contract implicit.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameters, and it does document all four: pool_name (sourced from a pool listing), name, size_bytes, and target ("Ceph target name from config; omit for the default"). The only shortfall is that size_bytes gets no unit/format detail beyond its name.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Create a new RBD image in a pool") and the [WRITE][risk=medium] tag immediately signals the operation class. It is cleanly distinguishable from siblings such as rbd_image_delete, rbd_snapshot_create, and pool_create.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the note "from a pool listing" hints that pool_ls should be consulted first, and the [WRITE] tag implies a mutating context. However, it never says when to prefer this over rbd_snapshot_create, what permissions are needed, or what happens if the image already exists.

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