iaas_promote_disk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety baseline is covered. Beyond that the description adds only the vSphere scope and the REST path; it does not say what changes on the disk, whether the operation can be re-run after failure, or whether it disrupts the attached VM — the very things an agent needs for a non-idempotent mutation. 'Second day promote' is unexplained jargon that adds no clarity.

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?

It is short, but the middle sentence ('Second day promote operation on disk') is garbled and conveys nothing, and the trailing POST path duplicates the annotation title verbatim, so a third of the text is wasted or redundant.

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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the definition leaves the core question — what promoting a block device does and what state it leaves the resource in — entirely unanswered. Only the platform restriction and endpoint are given, which is not enough for an agent to invoke this confidently.

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 coverage is 100%, so both the id and apiVersion parameters are fully documented in the schema; the description adds nothing about the id format or apiVersion choice. With the schema doing all the work, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

It names a verb ('promote') and resource ('disk') plus an endpoint path, but never explains what 'promote' actually means for a disk, so the agent cannot tell the effect from the text alone. The clause 'Applicable for vSphere Block Devices only' does help separate it from generic disk tools like iaas_resize_block_device or iaas_revert_disk_snapshot, which keeps this above tautology.

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 vSphere Block Devices constraint functions as an applicability precondition, which is genuine usage guidance. However there is no statement of when an agent should promote versus resize, snapshot, or revert a disk, and no prerequisites (power state, licensing, tiering support) are given.

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