mount_iso

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: it is a gated action, reversible, requires KVM_PILOT_MCP_ALLOW_MEDIA plus per-invocation approval, and invalidates planned mouse clicks due to frame generation bump. This goes well beyond the annotations' basic flags.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds parameter detail and caveats efficiently. It uses concise formatting with backticks for variables and line breaks to separate key ideas, with no unnecessary words.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the main operational aspects (source types, usb mode, permissions, side effect on frame generation). It omits explanations for three auxiliary parameters, but the core usage is well covered.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'source' (local path or URL) and 'usb' (USB flash drive vs CD-ROM), but does not clarify 'name', 'confirm', or 'profile'. This partial compensation is useful but incomplete.

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 ('Mount') and resource ('ISO as virtual media on the host'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'eject' or 'list_virtual_media'. It also notes the tool is reversible, further clarifying its purpose.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use the tool: it is gated, requires specific environment variable and approval, and has a side effect on frame generation. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for most use cases.

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