vyos_image_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the call blocks for up to 30 minutes, that it does not reboot, and that a timeout does not mean the install stopped. It omits permission/auth requirements and what happens to any existing default image, but the side-effect and latency profile is unusually well covered.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the non-reboot caveat, then the blocking/timeout behavior — a logical order with no filler. The trailing 'Args: url: ...' line slightly repeats the opening sentence, keeping it just short of maximally tight.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, everything an agent needs to invoke it safely is present: purpose, blocking behavior, timeout semantics, and a recovery instruction. Nothing material is missing.

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, and it does: the lone parameter is clarified as the URL to the VyOS ISO image, adding format intent beyond the bare 'Url' title. It does not specify URL scheme constraints or whether the URL is fetched from the router's perspective, so it is not fully complete.

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+resource ('Add a VyOS system image from a URL') and immediately differentiates from the sibling vyos_image_delete by making clear this is an additive install operation. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the operational context (downloads and installs a new image, used on next boot) and gives explicit recovery guidance on timeout: check vyos_show(["system", "image"]) before retrying. It stops short of naming alternatives or prerequisites (e.g. disk space, config mode), but the when-to-use and error-path guidance is concrete.

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