coco_build_disk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: BASIC files are tokenized while BIN and data are copied unchanged, and the image is fixed at 35 tracks. However, it omits overwrite semantics, error behavior, and permission requirements, leaving notable gaps for a write tool.

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 compact sentences, each earning its place: the build action and format first, then path conventions, then file-kind behavior. Fully front-loaded with zero filler.

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 two-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and file-kind handling but never says what is returned on success/failure or how existing files on the image are handled. It is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about outcomes.

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 only 50% (cocoName and kind lack descriptions), so the description must compensate. It does so by clarifying kind semantics (bas is tokenized, bin/data copied verbatim) and reinforcing the path conventions for hostPath and dskPath. This adds real meaning beyond the schema, though cocoName naming rules remain unaddressed.

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 states a precise verb and resource: 'Build a 35-track Disk BASIC image with ToolShed decb.' It names the exact output artifact (35-track Disk BASIC .dsk image) and the underlying tool, so an agent knows exactly what this produces. No sibling tool builds images, so no ambiguity exists despite the absence of explicit sibling references.

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?

The description gives path conventions ('Prefer storage/disks for output and storage/host/bas|bin|data for inputs'), which implies intended usage, but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives or any preconditions. Usage is implied by the input/output layout rather than explicitly stated.

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