partition_disk

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing. It does not state that partitioning is destructive to existing data, whether it requires the disk to be unmounted first, whether it needs elevated permissions, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 phrase is extremely short and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Every sentence would 'earn its place' only if there were any sentences to evaluate.

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 destructive disk operation with two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is entirely inadequate. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it safely or correctly is present.

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% across both parameters ('path' and 'type'), and the description adds no meaning whatsoever. An agent cannot tell what values are valid for 'type' or whether 'path' expects a device path like /dev/sdb.

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 'Partition disk' simply restates the tool name verbatim, giving no additional specificity about what partitioning means here (create, resize, format, table type). It does at least confirm the verb+resource combination, distinguishing it from sibling disk tools like mount_disk or list_disks, but only by virtue of the name itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as mount_disk, unmount_disk, get_disk_full_info, or list_disks. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context are provided.

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