layerfs_workspace_unmount

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond those fields: dirty-state refusal, the discard escape hatch, history retention, and idle Sandbox reclamation by LayerFS.

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?

Three short sentences with no waste. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the key discard constraint and lifecycle consequences.

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?

Annotations cover the destructive profile and there is no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the main lifecycle behavior, but the nested ws object remains underspecified, which is a clear gap for an agent constructing the call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the discard parameter's role for dirty state, but it says nothing about the nested ws fields sandbox, path, or image, leaving the required workspace object largely undocumented.

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?

"End a Workspace" names a specific verb and resource, and the pairing with layerfs_workspace_mount is obvious from the sibling set. It does not explicitly call out alternatives, but an agent can identify what this tool does without opening other schemas.

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 includes one useful conditional rule: dirty state is refused unless discard=true. It does not explain when to choose unmount versus commit, status, or cleanup-oriented siblings, and it omits any prerequisites or exclusions beyond that discard condition.

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