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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what the annotations already indicate (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). It does not state whether the operation is reversible, what happens if the connector is already detached, or any side effects, leaving the actual behavior ambiguous.

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, declarative sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words, and the structure is clean and easy to parse.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with destructive annotation, the description conveys the basic operation but omits important context: whether the connector is deleted or merely unlinked, expected output or errors, and any reversibility. Without an output schema, the agent must assume the behavioral details, which is a moderate 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?

The input schema provides complete documentation for both parameters, including how to obtain agent_id and what connector_id references. The description itself adds no further parameter semantics, so it defaults to the baseline for complete 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 states a specific verb 'Detach' and the resource 'code connector', with the target 'agent'. This clearly identifies the operation and differentiates it from other detach-* tools by naming the exact resource type, though it does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives or scope limits.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus when not to, no prerequisites are mentioned, and the description does not reference related operations like attach_code_connector. An agent is left without context to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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