vm_mount_iso

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the operation happens on a running VM and is a swap (implying reversibility), but it omits permissions needed, side effects on existing medium, and error conditions.

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?

One well-structured sentence with the purpose front-loaded and a parenthetical example that adds context without bloat.

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 annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain the parameters and behavioral constraints, but it only gives a use-case example. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but invocation details remain incomplete.

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 0% and neither parameter is described. The mention of 'virtio-win' and 'reference ISO' hints that iso_path is an ISO file path, but 'name' (presumably the VM name) is not addressed at all; the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Swap') and resource ('CD-ROM medium in the running VM'), and the example clarifies intended media. It is distinguishable from sibling ISO inspection/verification tools because it modifies VM state.

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 a concrete scenario ('insert virtio-win to install the guest agent, then swap back to the reference ISO'), giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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