hcloud_server_attach_iso_action

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

The description adds substantial context beyond the annotations: an already-attached ISO is silently detached (explaining the destructiveHint), the disk appears immediately, and boot order changes to ISO-first. What it omits is whether the boot-order change persists after the ISO is later detached, and it says nothing about the asynchronous action or the `wait` polling behavior, which is the main operational risk for a mutation call.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the key side effect. The opening line 'Attach an ISO to a Server' followed immediately by 'Attaches an ISO to a Server' is a redundant restatement of the tool name, but everything after it earns its place.

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 nested-body mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important state effects (auto-detach, boot order) that an agent must reason about before calling. The remaining gaps — asynchronous action lifecycle and permission requirements — are partly covered by annotations and the `wait` parameter description.

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 67% — `id`, `iso` and `wait` are documented inline, including the GET /isos reference for ISO identifiers. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own (e.g. whether `iso` accepts names as well as IDs is left to the schema), so it neither compensates for nor degrades the partial 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Attach an ISO to a Server') and immediately describes the effect, which cleanly distinguishes it from the inverse sibling hcloud_server_detach_iso_action. An agent can tell exactly what the call does without opening the 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?

Usage is only implied through consequences ('Server will immediately see it as a new disk', 'modified boot order'). There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over alternatives, no prerequisite checks (ISO must exist / be in the same location, server must be off or not), and no pointer to detach_iso to reverse it.

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