cloud_insts_imgs_new_vol

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as idempotency, error conditions, side effects (e.g., whether the volume is affected), or execution duration. It only describes the action and parameters without deeper behavioral context.

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 structured with a brief intro, parameter list, and a note. However, some parameter descriptions are verbose (e.g., tags), and the note about project/region resolution is lengthy. It could be more concise without losing essential information.

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 16 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks key context such as return value format, error handling, or behavioral notes. It does not explain the purpose of 'extra_headers' or 'extra_body' adequately, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 compensate. It provides inline descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Image CPU architecture type: aarch64, x86_64'), adding meaning beyond the schema's type/enum constraints. Some descriptions are vague ('Send extra headers'), but overall it adds significant value.

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?

Description starts with 'Create a new image from a bootable volume,' clearly specifying verb, resource, and source. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cloud_insts_imgs_del, cloud_insts_imgs_ls, and cloud_insts_imgs_upl, which handle deletion, listing, and updating images respectively.

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?

Explicit prerequisite: 'The volume must be bootable to create an image from it.' The note about resolving project/region IDs via other tools provides context on when to use this tool vs. auxiliary tools like cloud_projs_get and cloud_rgns_get. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives for creating images from other sources (e.g., upload).

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