unmount_iso

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that the operation is asynchronous and returns a callback key for check_task. This is valuable behavioral context not covered by annotations. However, it doesn't elaborate on side effects (e.g., whether unmounting affects the server state) or error conditions, so it's good but not exhaustive.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no filler. The main action is stated first, followed by the asynchronous behavior. Every word adds value, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

Given the simple parameter set, full schema coverage, and absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it does and that it's async with a callback key. It could optionally mention prerequisites (e.g., ISO must be mounted), but that's fairly obvious. Overall, it's sufficient for an agent to call correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id and confirm) are already fully described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about how the parameters are used or formatted. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and nothing more is contributed.

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 verb ('Unmount') and resource ('ISO image from server'), and it distinguishes this tool from its siblings like 'mount_iso' and 'upload_iso'. It also includes the API route 'iso/unmount_iso', removing any ambiguity about the intended operation.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., mount_iso, delete_iso_image). It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer that it's for detaching an ISO. There are no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned, so it's adequate but not thorough.

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