mount_iso

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

Annotations provide only readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds meaningful behavioral detail by disclosing that the operation is asynchronous and that the response includes a callback key for check_task. This is beyond what the annotations convey and helps the agent manage expectations correctly.

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 carry all essential information with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the async behavior and input-source guidance, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the moderate complexity, complete parameter schema, and annotations, the description provides everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: the action, async callback behavior, and where to obtain valid image identifiers. Since there is no output schema, the explicit mention of the check_task callback key is especially valuable.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some value by pointing to list_iso_images/get_uploaded_isos as the source for the ID/name parameters, but it does not significantly elaborate on parameter types or relationships beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource: 'Смонтировать ISO-образ на сервер', making the tool's action unmistakable. It also includes the endpoint path and clarifies the source of image identifiers via list_iso_images/get_uploaded_isos, which differentiates it from image-management siblings like upload_iso or add_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?

The description provides clear usage context: it is an asynchronous operation and returns a callback key for check_task, telling the agent how to proceed after invocation. It also directs the agent to list_iso_images or get_uploaded_isos for the required IDs/names. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with unmount_iso, so it stops short of a full 5.

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