eject

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

Reveals behavioral traits not present in annotations: it is a 'GATED act' requiring 'KVM_PILOT_MCP_ALLOW_MEDIA + per-invocation approval', and notes it is reversible. This significantly exceeds the annotation's idempotence/destructive hints with concrete operational constraints.

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 and immediately states the operation, followed by essential gating/permission details. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff.

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?

The description covers purpose, relationship to mount_iso, reversibility, and required permissions, which is strong for such a simple operation. However, it leaves both parameters completely unexplained and gives no hint of expected response or side effects beyond detachment, creating a noticeable gap given the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

Neither the description nor the input schema explains the purpose of the 'confirm' or 'profile' parameters. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to add any semantic meaning to the parameters, making it unusable for deciding how to fill them.

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?

Clearly states the action: 'Detach virtual media', and reinforces with 'inverse of mount_iso', which also differentiates it from the sibling tool mount_iso. The verb+resource is specific and 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?

Provides context by explicitly naming mount_iso as the inverse operation, signaling when to use this tool. However, it does not offer explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tools for failure scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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