usb_drive_attach

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose two non-obvious traits: the drive can only be attached to one side at a time, and after attaching to the host the OS needs a few seconds and drive letters may change. It does not mention permission/auth requirements or what happens if the drive is already attached, leaving some gaps.

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 sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and value meanings, with the timing caveat placed last. Slightly dense in the first sentence but every clause carries useful information.

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-value documentation is not needed, and the description covers targets, exclusivity, and post-attach timing. It omits edge-case behavior (e.g., re-attaching while already attached, error conditions), which keeps it just short of fully complete for a state-changing tool.

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% and the single parameter only has bare enum values, so the description must compensate. It does explain the meaning of all three values ('host' appears as a USB stick, 'kvm' enables the other USB tools, 'none' detaches), which is materially more than the schema offers.

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 (attach/detach) and resource (Virtual USB Drive) and enumerates the three target modes inline. It clearly distinguishes itself from the nearby usb_drive_list/upload/download/delete siblings by explaining that those require the 'kvm' attachment first.

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 maps each enum value to a use case: 'host' to expose the drive to the target OS, 'kvm' when the drive needs to be managed via usb_drive_list/upload/download/delete, and 'none' to detach. The agent gets a direct routing rule rather than having to infer one.

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