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

Although annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, the description adds value by clarifying that the operation only detaches the file and does not delete the underlying uploaded file. This reduces the perceived destructiveness and correctly sets expectations for the agent. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary wordsienne`, and the key clarification about not deleting the file is naturally included. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main action.

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 two-parameter tool with annotations already covering the destructive hint, the description is adequate. It could be improved by stating whether the file must be currently attached or by referencing the attach_file counterpart, but it is not critically incomplete.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (file_id and agent_id), so with 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema states, but it also does not need to.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Detach a file') on a specific resource ('from the agent') and includes an important clarifying note that the uploaded file itself is not deleted. This distinguishes it from other detach_* tools, though siblings like detach_ai_tool are differentiated by resource type in the name.

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 description implies usage for detaching a file from an agent, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus other detach_* tools. It also does not mention any prerequisites, such as needing the file to be currently attached, though the schema does provide the required parameters.

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