unmount_disk

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 and delivers nothing. It does not disclose whether unmounting can fail on a busy mount point, whether it risks data loss, whether elevated permissions are needed, or whether the mount point must exist first.

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 words are technically free of waste, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is not front-loaded with any useful information because there is no information at all.

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 disk-mutating operation with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is completely inadequate. An agent has no basis for understanding side effects, failure modes, or the response.

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 single required 'mountPoint' parameter is documented nowhere. The name is largely self-explanatory, but the description adds no format, path convention, or validation detail to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Unmount disk' merely restates the tool name with no added specificity. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as mount_disk, list_disks, get_disk_full_info, or partition_disk, so an agent gains nothing beyond what the name already conveys.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist. The natural counter-tool (mount_disk) is present among siblings, yet the description never references it or any preconditions for unmounting.

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