unmount_iso

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the operation is async and returns a callback key that must be polled via check_task. It does not describe side effects on the running server or whether the ISO remains uploaded.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the action first, then the async trait, then the tracking instruction. Every sentence carries actionable information.

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 two-parameter, annotation-covered, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the action, the async nature, and the return-tracking mechanism. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke and follow up on the call is missing.

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%, with both 'id' and 'confirm' fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about either parameter (e.g., whether 'id' is a server or ISO identifier).

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 and resource ('Unmount an ISO image from a server') and even names the underlying endpoint (iso/unmount_iso). An agent can immediately distinguish it from the sibling mount_iso and from delete_iso_image.

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?

Provides operational context that the call is asynchronous and that the returned callback key should be tracked with check_task, which effectively tells the agent the follow-up flow. It does not, however, state when to unmount versus other ISO-management siblings such as mount_iso or delete_iso_image.

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