media_mount

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds real context beyond them: the safety gate ALLOW_MEDIA, the confirm_vm echo requirement, and the explicit no-auto-stop behavior. It stops short of saying what happens to an already-mounted ISO (the likely source of the destructive hint) or what occurs on failure.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the hard precondition, followed by the effect and the auth gates. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the critical safety gates. But for a 6-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, the unexplained controller_number/controller_location pair and the silence on overwriting existing mounted media leave meaningful gaps.

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 carry all param meaning, and it only clarifies confirm_vm (must equal vm_name) and boot_first (first boot device). vm_name, iso_path, and especially controller_number vs controller_location remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (mount a host ISO into a VM DVD drive) plus the required pre-state (VM must be Off) and the optional boot_first effect. That is enough to distinguish it from media_list and media_eject without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states when the tool is valid (VM Off) and an important boundary: it never stops the VM automatically, so the caller must power it off first via vm_power. It does not name media_eject or media_list as the counterpart/alternative for changing or removing media, so routing is clear but not fully spelled out.

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