attach_iso_to_vm

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it replaces any mounted ISO, reconfigures the existing CD-ROM or adds one on the IDE controller, works whether the VM is powered on or off, and returns a status string or specific errors. This adds substantial value beyond readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint.

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 tight and well-structured: a one-line action statement followed by concise behavioral details, failure modes, and return value. Every sentence adds necessary information without fluff, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with a complete input schema, an output schema, and relevant annotations, the description covers purpose, usage steps, edge cases (no IDE controller), power state, and return behavior. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke it is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters (vm_name, iso_ds_path, target) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds a useful hint about finding ISO paths with browse_datastore, but does not provide additional semantic detail for the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Mount a datastore ISO into a VM's virtual CD-ROM drive.' It clearly defines the operation and distinguishes it from siblings like browse_datastore (finding ISOs) and vm_reconfigure (general VM reconfiguration). The [WRITE] prefix also signals mutation, aligning with the write intent.

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 explicit context: it tells agents to find ISO paths first with browse_datastore using pattern '*.iso', and explains when the operation fails (no IDE controller). It does not spell out 'when not to use' alternatives, but the prerequisite and failure condition provide clear usage guidance.

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