Отмонтирование ISO-образа сервера

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

The description discloses the key side effect: 'перезагружает сервер в штатном режиме' (reboots the server in normal mode), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention prerequisites like the ISO being mounted or potential service interruption, but the added reboot behavior provides meaningful transparency.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes value.

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 a simple tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to understand what the tool does and the important consequence. It lacks only minor details like error conditions or prerequisites, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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 single parameter server_id is fully documented in the schema with 'ОБЯЗАТЕЛЬНОЕ ПОЛЕ - ID сервера', providing 100% coverage. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, 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 clearly states the specific action: 'Отмонтирует примонтированный ISO-образ' (unmounts the mounted ISO image) and adds the consequential behavior of rebooting the server. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like unmount_network_drive (network drive) and reboot_server (just reboot).

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 usage context: when an ISO image is mounted and the server should be returned to normal operation. It mentions the reboot, but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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