storage_iscsi_add_target

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

The description claims idempotency ('Idempotent: a duplicate address:port returns 'already configured' without changes'), but the annotations indicate idempotentHint: false. This is a direct contradiction, so per rules the score is 1. Additionally, the description provides useful behavioral info (auto-rescan, audit logging, error handling), but the contradiction overrides.

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 well-structured with a summary line, then prerequisite, idempotency, rescan info, audit logging, and parameter details. Every sentence adds value, but the parameter list could be more concise. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 that an output schema exists (the description mentions 'Returns a confirmation string'), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers prerequisite, idempotency, auto-rescan, audit logging, and error handling. The only minor gap is not explaining the format of the confirmation string, but the output schema likely covers that.

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%, but the description provides detailed semantics for all five parameters: host_name ('ESXi host name as shown in vCenter inventory'), address ('iSCSI portal IP address (IPv4/IPv6 literal; hostnames are rejected with a validation error)'), port ('1-65535 (default 3260)'), dry_run ('return a preview of the change without executing it'), and target ('Optional vCenter/ESXi target name from config'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 starts with '[WRITE] Add an iSCSI send (dynamic discovery) target to an ESXi host's software iSCSI adapter, then automatically rescan all HBAs and VMFS volumes to discover new LUNs.' This uses a clear verb ('Add'), specific resource ('iSCSI send target', 'ESXi host's software iSCSI adapter'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like storage_iscsi_remove_target and storage_rescan.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite: 'software iSCSI must be enabled first (storage_iscsi_enable); otherwise returns an error with guidance.' It also notes idempotency ('a duplicate address:port returns 'already configured' without changes') and that 'No separate storage_rescan call is needed afterwards.' Parameter descriptions include validation (e.g., 'hostnames are rejected with a validation error'), providing clear when-to-use and when-not guidance.

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