media_eject

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description's value is the extra preconditions it supplies: VM power state and the ALLOW_MEDIA capability requirement. The confirm_vm==vm_name guardrail is a genuine safety disclosure not present in the schema. It doesn't say what happens on a mismatched confirm_vm or an empty drive.

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?

Two compact sentences with the action first and constraints second — no filler. Slightly compressed phrasing ("confirm_vm equal to vm_name") reads awkwardly but costs no clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the destructive/idempotency profile. For a mutating tool with 4 parameters the description is nearly sufficient, missing only the controller-location addressing semantics.

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 carry parameter meaning. It usefully explains confirm_vm's required value (must equal vm_name) and vm_name is self-evident, but controller_location is required yet never explained, and controller_number's default/role is unaddressed — a real gap for targeting the right drive slot.

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 ("Eject an existing VM DVD drive") plus a hard precondition (VM must be Off), which distinguishes it from media_mount/media_list by implication. It never names the sibling it pairs with, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: the VM must be Off, ALLOW_MEDIA must be granted, and confirm_vm must match vm_name. It stops short of naming media_mount as the inverse operation or stating what to do if the drive is already empty.

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