unmount_media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral fact — that it acts on already-mounted media rather than anything else — but says nothing about failure behavior when nothing is mounted, permission requirements, or whether the underlying media/image stays intact.

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 nine-word sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-argument operation, though it is too sparse to earn a top mark for structure.

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 parameterless tool with an output schema already covering return values, the description is close to sufficient, but with no annotations it leaves the state preconditions and error behavior unaddressed, which is the minimum an agent needs to decide whether to call it now.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is no parameter semantics to explain and the description cannot be faulted here. Nothing in the schema is left ambiguous by 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?

States a specific verb (detach/unmount) and resource (virtual media), which is enough to separate it from the mount_media_url/mount_media_storage siblings and from the usb_drive_* family. It does not, however, explicitly name any sibling or clarify how it relates to usb_drive_attach, so it falls short of the differentiation a 5 requires.

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 phrase "currently mounted" implies the tool is used to reverse a prior mount, so usage is inferable but never stated. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance despite several closely related media/USB siblings in the list.

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