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

The detach action is consistent with the annotations (`readOnlyHint=false`, `destructiveHint=true`), so there is no contradiction. However, the description reveals nothing beyond the bare mutation and does not say whether the endpoint is deleted, remains available, or can be reattached.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler, repeated phrases, or unnecessary details.

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?

The schema and annotations cover important basics, and the tool is low in complexity, but the description still leaves gaps around preconditions, side effects, and when exactly the tool should be called. It is minimally adequate rather than fully self-sufficient.

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 schema already fully describes both parameters with 100% coverage, including agent_id and endpoint_id. The description adds no additional meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names a specific action ('Detach'), a specific object ('custom API endpoint'), and its source ('from the agent'), so it can be distinguished from sibling tools like attach_api_endpoint, detach_vector_store, and detach_sub_agent without inspecting the schema.

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 alternatives. It does not mention the inverse attach_api_endpoint, name any preconditions, or warn that the endpoint must currently be attached.

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