pool_push_image

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

Goes far beyond annotations by disclosing the extreme destructive impact ('RECREATES EVERY DESKTOP'), the preview mechanism with affected-desktop and in-session-user counts, the confirm flag behavior for scheduling, and auditing. This is rich behavioral context that complements the destructiveHint annotation.

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 yet information-dense, starting with a bold warning, then the confirm behavior, then a structured Args list. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral warnings thoroughly. However, it doesn't describe the return value (e.g., task id) or what happens after scheduling, which could be useful given no output schema and the presence of task_status sibling. Still, the overall guidance is remarkably complete for a complex destructive operation.

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?

Every parameter is semantically explained: pool_id sourced from pool_list, stop_on_error behavior with default, logoff_policy options, confirm as preview/schedule switch, and target fallback from config.yaml. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Apply the pending image to an instant-clone pool' and immediately warns that it 'RECREATES EVERY DESKTOP'. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope and distinguishes it from sibling pool operations like pool_set_enabled.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use: to apply a pending image to an instant-clone pool, with a preview mode (confirm=False) and schedule mode (confirm=True). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the blast radius warning implies caution and the two-step confirm flow guides usage.

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