Omni-MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that unmounting makes files 'no longer exposed as resources', which hints at a destructive effect, but it does not specify whether this action is reversible, requires permissions, or has side effects like data loss. More behavioral details are needed for a mutation tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Unmount a previously mounted folder') and efficiently explains the outcome. Every word contributes to understanding, with no wasted text, making it highly concise and clear.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. However, for a destructive operation like unmounting, it lacks details on behavior, error handling, or output expectations, leaving gaps in completeness for safe agent use.

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%, with the parameter 'path' documented as 'Absolute path of the folder to unmount'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it does not explain parameter syntax or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('unmount') and resource ('a previously mounted folder'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'mount_folder' and 'list_mounts' by specifying the opposite operation. It explicitly mentions the outcome ('so its files are no longer exposed as resources'), which further clarifies its purpose.

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 implies usage by referencing 'a previously mounted folder', suggesting it should be used after mounting, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_mounts' to check mounts first. No exclusions or clear alternatives are provided, leaving some ambiguity in context.

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