InstantUnstructuredDataRecoveryUnmount

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'stop'/'unmount' operation, implying it's destructive to the mounted state, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to data in the mount, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise with a single phrase 'Stop file share publishing (unmount).' It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action.

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 complexity (a destructive operation with 2 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the operation's effects, parameter usage, return values, or error conditions. For a tool that likely stops a critical recovery process, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions no parameters at all, leaving both 'mountId' and 'body' completely undocumented. The description doesn't explain what 'mountId' refers to or what the 'body' object is for, failing to add any meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 'Stop file share publishing (unmount)' clearly states the action (stop/unmount) and resource (file share publishing), but it's somewhat vague about the specific context. It doesn't explicitly mention that this is for instant unstructured data recovery mounts, which is implied by the tool name but not stated in the description. The description distinguishes from sibling tools like 'InstantUnstructuredDataRecoveryMount' by indicating an opposite action, but could be more specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that a mount must exist first), when this operation is appropriate, or what happens after unmounting. With many sibling tools related to recovery operations, there's no explicit comparison or context for selection.

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