e2e_attach_volume

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutating operation. It does not say whether the volume must be unattached first, whether the attach is idempotent, what permissions are needed, or what happens on failure. Only the basic action is conveyed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, sized appropriately for a simple two-required-parameter operation. No structural issues, though it is arguably too terse to be maximally useful.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the prerequisites and side effects an agent needs before invoking it, such as volume state requirements and the fact that location/project_id likely must match the target VM.

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 100%, so vm_id, block_id, location, and project_id are already documented in the schema. The description merely echoes the resource types and adds no format, constraint, or relationship detail (e.g. that location/project_id should match the VM), so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Attach a block storage volume') and names the target ('a compute node (VM)'), which is enough to distinguish it from read-only siblings like e2e_list_volumes. It does not explicitly differentiate from e2e_detach_volume or e2e_delete_volume, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that the volume and VM must be in the same location/project), and no reference to alternatives such as e2e_detach_volume. Usage is only implied by the verb 'attach'.

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