tape_unload

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose the two-stage behavior (rewind, then unload) plus that the tape returns to its origin slot and that a confirm flag gates execution. However, it omits the busy-library contention behavior that the force parameter implies, says nothing about what happens when no tape is loaded, and does not state whether the operation is reversible or what failure leaves behind.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and destination, then appends the execution precondition. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

For a three-parameter command with fully described schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers what matters most: the action, the destination, the mechanism, and the confirm gate. The main remaining gap is failure and busy-state behavior, which is modest for a simple mechanical operation.

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 all three parameters are already documented, and the baseline applies. The description adds only the confirm:true requirement and the notion that 'that slot' is the original load slot; the force parameter's busy-library semantics come entirely from the schema, not the description.

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 states a specific compound action (rewind then unload) on a specific resource (the currently loaded tape) and explains the mechanism (host-side mtx/mt). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like tape_load or tape_erase, which move data rather than return a cartridge to its origin slot.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'the tape currently loaded from a slot' — an agent can infer this applies after a load and not otherwise, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling alternative is named. The 'Requires confirm:true' clause is a precondition rather than selection guidance.

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