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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds useful scope: it detaches a contact rather than deleting the client/supplier or the document. This clarifies what exactly changes, with no contradiction of the annotations.

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 brief sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded and the sibling pointer adds value without bloating the description.

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 one-parameter mutation tool, the description is mostly adequate and the destructive annotation covers the risk profile. However, the ambiguous id parameter and lack of any statement about result/return leave a noticeable gap.

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 0% and the description does not clarify what the required 'id' refers to (document id, contact id, or relation id). The only implicit hint is 'from a document,' which is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Detach'), names the resource ('the contact (client or supplier) from a document'), and immediately distinguishes its relationship to set_document_contact. An agent can tell this is the inverse operation of its sibling.

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 'Pairs with set_document_contact' provides a clear alternative and signals this tool is the counterpart/undo for setting a contact. It doesn't spell out explicit when-not conditions, but the inverse relation is clear enough.

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