Attach volume

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the operation without explaining effects, prerequisites, idempotency, or potential disruptions. The docs link is useful but does not itself disclose the behavioral traits needed to call the tool safely.

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 a single clear sentence followed by a relevant docs link. It is front-loaded and free of filler, though it omits behavioral and parameter details that would increase usefulness.

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?

Given six parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and minimal schema descriptions, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call this reliably. It fails to clarify what 'name' refers to, what the attachment means operationally, or what consequences may occur, making the docs link a partial patch rather than a full remedy.

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 only 17%, with just hostId documented as 'Node name to attach to,' and the description adds no parameter-level clarification. The six parameters include likely important fields like name and disableFrontend that are left unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the schema's low 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 states a clear action ('Attach a volume to a node') with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like volume_detach, but the action is unambiguous. A short docs link adds a reference point without confusing the core purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as volume_detach, volume_activate, or volume_engine_upgrade. There is no mention of prerequisites, common scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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