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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a destructive mutation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—it does not mention reversibility, side effects, or what happens to the unbound tool. Since the description carries no extra value, this is a minimal score.

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?

The description is a single sentence with zero waste, stating the core action without superfluous details. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient for a simple detach operation.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two required parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic action. However, it does not mention any side effects or outcomes (e.g., whether the tool is deleted or remains available for reattachment), and it provides no disambiguation from sibling detach tools. For a tool with destructive annotations, a bit more context would improve completeness, but it is not severely lacking.

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 100%, with both tool_id and agent_id having clear descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information, but the schema already documents them adequately. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 'Unbind' and names the resource 'an AI tool from the agent', making the action clear. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling detach tools like detach_api_endpoint or detach_file, relying on the tool name for differentiation. The description is direct and unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling detach tools (detach_api_endpoint, detach_file, etc.). The description merely states the action without providing context on prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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