mount_iso

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

Annotations establish readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to re-state mutability. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it's an asynchronous operation that returns a callback key, and confirm must be true. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the async/callback caveat, then sourcing guidance. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical call pattern: async behavior, callback key for check_task, and where to get the image ID. It doesn't cover prerequisites such as server power state, but the required info for a correct invocation 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 already describes all four parameters (coverage 100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by telling the agent where to obtain the image identifier (list_iso_images or get_uploaded_isos) and reinforces the confirm requirement, pushing it above baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Mount ISO image to server') and even notes the endpoint key. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like unmount_iso, upload_iso, and delete_iso_image.

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 gives clear operational context: the operation is asynchronous and returns a callback key for check_task, and directs the agent to source the image identifier from list_iso_images or get_uploaded_isos. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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