mount_iso

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the operation is destructive (mutation) and that confirm controls execution, returning a preview when false. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond a simple mount command, though it does not detail preview contents or error handling.

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 compact and well-structured: one line for purpose, a brief warning, and a clean list of arguments. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameters, prerequisites, and execution confirmation. The output schema exists, so return details are not required. The mention of get_vm_cdroms adds completeness.

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?

All four parameters are explained with meaningful details: vm_id, cdrom_id (source from get_vm_cdroms), image_path (with an example), and confirm (execution requirement). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, which have 0% coverage.

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 action 'Mount an ISO image to a VM's CD-ROM drive' with a specific verb and target. It distinguishes from siblings like unmount_iso by the operation performed. The 'DESTRUCTIVE' prefix adds emphasis but does not obscure the 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 usage context: tells you to get cdrom_id from get_vm_cdroms, and explains the confirm parameter behavior (must be true to execute, otherwise preview). Does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient for correct selection given sibling tools.

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