block_storage_attach

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses smart identifier resolution and the live flag's reboot semantics, but it omits mutation caveats (e.g., detaching from a previous instance, region requirements, permission needs). It says 'Returns: Success confirmation' but doesn't describe side effects.

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 one-liner is front-loaded and the Args/Returns sections are logically structured with no filler. Slight redundancy exists because the Args section repeats schema property names, and ctx is extraneous, but overall the description is tight and scannable.

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?

Adequate for a simple attach operation: it covers identifier resolution, the live parameter, and return confirmation. Missing context like whether the volume must be unattached, whether a reboot is required when live=false, and whether the volume/instance must be in the same region leaves gaps for an agent making real-world decisions.

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 compensate. It does, by explaining that volume_identifier accepts label/ID and instance_identifier accepts label/hostname/ID, and by documenting the live default. However, it lists ctx, which is absent from the schema, and doesn't clarify types or constraints beyond identifier forms.

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 opening line 'Attach block storage volume to an instance' states a specific verb and both resource types, immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like block_storage_detach, block_storage_create, and block_storage_list_* operations. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 explains the action but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., volume must be unattached, instance must be running), and no alternatives or exclusions. An agent must infer when to choose this over the many sibling storage operations.

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