unmount_iso

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior by stating the operation is asynchronous and returns a callback key for check_task. This goes beyond annotation data, although it does not describe side effects or prerequisites in detail.

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 two short, focused sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with the most important behavioral detail (async callback), with no redundant or filler content.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and async callback behavior. It could mention the confirm parameter or what exactly happens after unmounting, but the current information is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and check the result.

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 input schema already covers both parameters (id and confirm) with clear descriptions, and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Размонтировать ISO-образ с сервера' (unmount ISO image from server), and includes the endpoint path (iso/unmount_iso). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mount_iso and list_iso_images without ambiguity.

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 action implies when to use it (when an ISO needs to be unmounted from a server), and the async note indicates how to track the operation via check_task. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the guidance mostly implicit.

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