mount_service_iso

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

Discloses that the operation is a write but non-destructive, requires specific scope, and that ISO URL is fetched server-side with SSRF protection. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, permission, and security note. No redundancy or irrelevant details.

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?

Covers purpose, permissions, security, and non-destructiveness. Could mention whether mount replaces existing ISO or if service must be stopped, but still adequate for a simple tool.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds minor behavioral context (SSRF guarding) but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'mount' and the resource 'rescue/install ISO on a VPS as a virtual CD-ROM'. It is distinct from sibling tools like unmount_service_iso and other service actions.

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?

Specifies required scope (services:write) and source for service_id (list_services). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with alternatives, but the context is fairly clear.

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