upload_iso

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds the client-availability constraint and the endpoint, but does not disclose side effects, confirmation behavior, or what happens on upload (e.g., whether it replaces an existing image). 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?

The description is a single short sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the endpoint and availability. No wasted words, though it could have used the space to add usage guidance.

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 3-parameter upload tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the action, resource, endpoint, and client availability, but lacks guidance on when to use it versus add_iso_image and what the response or side effects are.

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. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the endpoint context; it doesn't clarify the relationship between 'url' and 'name' or the role of 'confirm'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 ('Загрузить' = upload) and resource ('новый ISO-образ по URL'), and includes the endpoint path (iso/upload). It clearly distinguishes the action from sibling tools like mount_iso, unmount_iso, and delete_iso_image, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 says it is available to clients ('Доступно клиентам'), which gives some context on who may use it, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_iso_image or list_iso_images, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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