add_iso_image

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the operation is an upsert by name and that the 'add' permission is required. This adds useful behavioral and authorization context, though it does not explain what happens to an existing image when it is updated.

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 a single two-clause sentence that leads with the action, includes the endpoint and permission requirement, and contains no filler. Every element contributes useful information.

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 simple three-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus input schema is largely sufficient. The main gap is not explicitly distinguishing this tool from upload_iso, but the 'by name' add/update wording narrows the ambiguity.

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%, and the input schema already documents name, url, and confirm. The description adds only the 'by name' matching detail, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('add a new ISO image or update an existing one by name') and names the endpoint (iso/add), clearly identifying the resource and operation. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like upload_iso or mount_iso, so differentiation is mostly implicit.

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 a clear prerequisite — the special 'add' permission — but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. The intended use case is implied by the verb and resource, so an agent can infer it, but it is not spelled out.

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