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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description restates idempotency but does add the concrete detail that it is a no-op when the document is not in the group. It stops short of the most useful behavioral fact: that the document itself is untouched and remains in the library.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the one behavioral caveat that matters. No filler.

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 and all parameters are documented, so the description only needs to convey the operation and its edge case, which it does. Adding a note that the document persists after detachment would make it fully complete.

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% and the tenant_slug parameter is documented in detail in the schema, so the description has no structural gap to fill. It adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Remove a document from a group.' That cleanly separates it from the sibling kb_groups_attach_document, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 verb — an agent can infer this is the inverse of attaching, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to a related tool such as kb_documents_delete for actually removing the document.

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