add_iso_image

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not required to restate those. The description adds useful context: the operation requires the special 'add' permission and can either add a new image or update an existing one by name. However, it does not disclose what happens on update (e.g., whether the existing image is replaced or rejected), or any side effects beyond the permission requirement.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action (add or update ISO image) and then states the permission requirement. It is concise and structured effectively, though it could have added a brief note about the confirm parameter or update behavior without becoming verbose.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and three parameters, the description covers the core action and permission requirement but leaves gaps: it does not explain what the 'confirm' parameter does beyond the schema's 'Нужно true, чтобы выполнить операцию', does not clarify when 'url' is needed, and does not describe the response or error behavior. The openWorldHint annotation suggests the API may have side effects, but the description does not elaborate. This is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (url, name, confirm). The description adds the meaning of the 'confirm' parameter implicitly by noting the operation requires the 'add' permission, but it does not explain the relationship between 'url' and 'name' (e.g., whether url is required for new images or updates). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Добавить новый ISO-образ или обновить существующий по имени' (add a new ISO image or update an existing one by name), and includes the endpoint 'iso/add'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_iso, mount_iso, unmount_iso, and delete_iso_image, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 implies usage context by mentioning the required special permission 'add' and the operation's dual add/update behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like upload_iso or delete_iso_image. The permission note gives some guidance, but no explicit when/when-not conditions are provided.

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