eject

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the gating requirements, that the operation is reversible, the no-op edge case (returns detached=false rather than an error), and the side-effect boundary (does not touch power or boot order; a running host keeps running until reboot). This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure annotations like idempotentHint/destructiveHint cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb+resource and the sibling relationship, then layered with gating, edge-case and side-effect notes in order of importance. Dense rather than padded, though the closing 'Returns the typed act outcome' is mildly redundant given the earlier detached=false explanation.

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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys the return contract (typed act outcome, detached=false when nothing is attached), the auth/approval prerequisites, and the side-effect scope. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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% and both parameters (confirm, profile) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'per-invocation approval', which loosely maps to ``confirm``, but adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail 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?

States a specific verb (detach) applied to a specific resource (virtual media presented to the host) and explicitly frames itself as the inverse of ``mount_iso``. An agent can distinguish it from mount_iso, list_virtual_media and set_boot_device without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear operative context: it is gated behind KVM_PILOT_MCP_ALLOW_MEDIA plus per-invocation approval, and it routes boot-order concerns to ``set_boot_device``. It stops short of an explicit when-not clause, but the inverse-of-mount_iso framing and the boot-order hand-off leave little ambiguity.

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