mount_iso

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds important behavior beyond the annotations: the operation is asynchronous and returns a callback key for check_task. It does not mention permissions, required server state, or side effects, so it is not complete.

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 three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the async return behavior, then parameter shape. Every sentence contributes to invoking the tool correctly, with no 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?

Given annotations and a fully described five-parameter schema, the main missing behavioral detail is the async return mechanism, which the description supplies via the callback key for check_task. It does not mention that confirm must be true or what server/ISO state is required, but confirm is covered by the schema.

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 id, iso, name, iso_id, and confirm. The description repeats that InvAPI expects the `iso` field and that name/iso_id are aliases, which is mildly useful but mostly restates the schema rather than adding new semantics.

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 the specific action "Смонтировать ISO-образ на сервер" and endpoint "iso/mount_iso", clearly distinguishing it by verb and resource from siblings like unmount_iso, delete_iso_image, and list_iso_images. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

It notes the operation is asynchronous and says a callback key is returned for check_task, which gives useful follow-up guidance. However, it does not say when to choose mount_iso over unmount_iso or over listing/uploading ISO images, nor does it state prerequisites, so usage guidance is mostly implied.

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