Создание образа

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that the process is asynchronous ('Процесс асинхронный') and instructs the agent to track status via get_image, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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, information-dense sentence using (а), (б), (в) to structure three scenarios. Every clause adds value—modes, HTTP upload instruction, and async tracking—without any filler or redundant text.

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 tool's complexity (three creation modes, 6 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: how to invoke each mode, async tracking, and follow-up via get_image. It does not explain return values, but the pointer to get_image compensates for the lack of an output 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?

All six parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema, including relationship constraints (e.g., upload_url should not be used with disk_id). The description recaps these modes but does not add significant new syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 clearly states 'Создаёт образ' (Creates an image) and enumerates three distinct creation modes: snapshot from disk_id, import from upload_url, or empty slot for HTTP upload. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like delete_image, get_image, and create_image_download.

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 clear context for when to use each mode by specifying parameter combinations: disk_id for snapshots, upload_url for qcow2/iso imports, and neither for an empty slot. It also advises tracking via get_image for async completion, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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