coco_unmount_flop

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 does not say what happens if no image is mounted (error vs no-op), whether the operation is reversible, or whether it requires an active session, which are meaningful gaps for a state-mutating tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though extremely terse and could carry one more clause of useful context without bloat.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is minimally adequate, but with no annotations and no mention of preconditions or failure behavior, an agent lacks the context to know when the call is valid.

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 the single 'drive' parameter already documents its enum values and flop1 default. The description merely restates the drive options, adding no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Unload') and resource ('disk image') scoped to the two floppy drives, which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling coco_mount_flop. It is clear without needing to open the schema, though it does not explicitly name the inverse sibling.

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 the operation (unload a mounted image) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites such as needing the emulator running or an image mounted, and no reference to alternatives. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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