Copy an ISO image located on the broker host into the VM's managed media directory, making it available as virtual CD-ROM for booting or installing software.
Copy a broker-local .iso image into this VM's managed media directory. source_path is resolved on the broker host; remote media upload is not available yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vm_id | Yes | ||
| media_id | No | ||
| source_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds a useful behavioral constraint: paths are broker-local and remote upload is unsupported. It does not clarify what makes the operation destructive (e.g., overwriting an existing media_id), but annotation coverage lowers the burden.
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 two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded and the caveat follows directly, 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?
For a destructive 3-parameter tool with no output schema, this is incomplete: media_id semantics are absent, destructive edge cases are undisclosed, and there is no guidance on what comes after the copy or how to attach the media. The missing parameter semantics are a significant gap.
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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It clarifies source_path only by stating it is broker-local. The required vm_id and the optional media_id are never defined, so an agent cannot know how to name the resulting media or what happens if media_id is omitted.
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 action and object: 'Copy a broker-local .iso image into this VM's managed media directory.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling media operations (mount/eject/delete/list) and from file_push by targeting the managed media directory on the broker side.
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 explicitly scopes the source: 'source_path is resolved on the broker host' and warns 'remote media upload is not available yet,' giving an agent clear conditions for when this tool applies. It does not name alternative tools, 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.