storage_iscsi_enable

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

The description states the tool is idempotent, but the annotation idempotentHint is false, creating a contradiction. Additionally, the description says it returns a confirmation string and includes remediation hints, which adds some transparency, but the contradiction is a critical flaw. Per rules, score 1 for contradiction.

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 clear label '[WRITE]', a concise main sentence, then bullet-point-like details, and an Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the tool's complexity (idempotent, non-disruptive, audit-logged) and sibling tools, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, prerequisites, behavior, parameters, and relation to other tools. It lacks details on output format but notes a confirmation string and errors with hints. Output schema exists, so this is acceptable.

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 fully explain parameters. It does so: host_name is explained with 'exactly as shown in vCenter inventory (FQDN or IP). Errors if not found.' dry_run: 'return a preview of the change without executing it.' target: 'Optional... omit to use the default target.' This exceeds what the schema provides.

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 enables the software iSCSI adapter on an ESXi host, with specific verb 'Enable' and resource 'software iSCSI adapter (vmhba)'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it's a prerequisite for storage_iscsi_add_target and suggests checking state with storage_iscsi_status.

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 provides good context: it is a required prerequisite before storage_iscsi_add_target, idempotent, and non-disruptive. It also advises to check current state with storage_iscsi_status. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or list alternatives, though the sibling context covers that.

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