Deploy engine image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses that the operation is 'Destructive' and that 'image is not validated against a known-good list.' These are meaningful behavioral warnings beyond what the schema conveys.

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 compact and well-structured: it states the action first, then adds the crucial validation warning, the destructive warning, the explicit authorization requirement, and a docs link. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 single-parameter, mutation-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, safety, validation behavior, authorization requirements, and provides docs. It does not describe the result or postconditions of deployment, but the included warnings and docs mitigate that 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?

The schema provides no description for the required 'image' parameter, and the tool description does not explain its format or expected value. However, the description's opening sentence identifies 'image' as a Longhorn engine image, and the warning that it is not validated adds partial semantic context.

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 'Deploy a new Longhorn engine image,' giving a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes engineimage_create from siblings like engineimage_list, engineimage_get, and engineimage_delete, which are all read-only or different operations.

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 strong usage guidance: 'Do not call this unless the user has explicitly authorized it in this conversation — never proactively, speculatively, or as a side effect of another task.' This clearly defines when the tool may be used, though it does not mention alternative tools for related actions.

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