unmount_iso

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: 'DESTRUCTIVE' warning and the confirm flag's behavior ('Must be true to execute. Returns a preview otherwise.'). It does not detail side effects like whether the VM must be stopped, but the provided information is useful for safe usage.

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 concise and well-structured, leading with a destructive warning, stating the purpose in one sentence, and listing arguments with clear explanations. Every sentence contributes value without repetition.

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 tool is simple, and the description covers the core operation and the confirm behavior. However, it lacks explicit usage context such as when to unmount versus mount, whether the VM must be powered off, or what the output/preview contains. Despite this, it is reasonably complete for a basic unmount operation.

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 description provides brief explanations for all three parameters, especially clarifying the confirm parameter's role, which is not evident from the schema alone. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and adds meaningful guidance.

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/eject an ISO from a VM's CD-ROM drive.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like mount_iso and get_vm_cdroms.

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 implies usage by naming the action, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like mount_iso, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The purpose is clear, but there is no direct guidance on choosing this tool.

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