pbs_tape_drive_eject

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: mutation, risk level, physical ejection on standalone drives, default dry-run behavior, execution endpoint, response format, irreversibility, and configuration requirement. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 concise sentences front-loaded with key information (MUTATION, RISK_MEDIUM). Each sentence adds essential value without redundancy. Well-structured for quick parsing.

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 output schema existence and full schema coverage, the description covers all needed context: operation, risk, execution steps, expected response, prerequisites. No gaps remain for an agent to use this tool safely.

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 baseline is 3. The description implicitly mentions 'drive' and 'confirm' but does not add parameter details beyond the schema. It does not enhance understanding of parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Clearly states 'eject/unload a drive's mounted media' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the physical ejection risk and human intervention needed, which is specific to this 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?

Provides clear usage context: mutation, dry-run by default, confirm to execute, and risk warning. However, it lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools like pbs_tape_drive_unload, leaving the agent to infer when to choose this over alternatives.

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