unmount_service_iso

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation is a 'plain write — not destructive' and declares the required scope. This adds behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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?

Two sentences, each providing distinct and necessary information. No redundant words and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential: action, scope, non-destructiveness, and parameter source. Minor gap: no indication of response or return state.

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?

The only parameter, service_id, is described as 'Service ID from list_services,' which adds the important hint of where to obtain the value. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description supplements the schema well.

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 action: 'Unmount the currently mounted ISO from a VPS.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tool 'mount_service_iso' confirms the inverse relationship.

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: requires 'services:write' scope, notes it is non-destructive, and instructs to get service_id from list_services. Lacks explicit when-not or alternatives, but sibling context implies proper usage.

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