Storage Disk Umount

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly discloses that this is a write operation, but it does not explain side effects, required permissions, failure conditions, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens to the disk after unmounting.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, and the write-operation warning is front-loaded. It is concise, though perhaps overly terse for a five-parameter storage mutation tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations and a moderately complex NAS/storage operation involving host, port, scheme, and profile, the description omits important operational context and safety guidance.

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 all five parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so 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 states a specific verb and resource: unmount an independent hard disk. It also labels the operation as a write action, which distinguishes it from read-oriented storage inspection tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from nearby siblings such as storage_umount or storage_disk_mount.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as storage_umount or storage_disk_mount. It does not mention prerequisites, host/profile selection, or conditions under which unmounting should be preferred.

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