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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. However, the description adds no further context about what 'detach' entails—whether the store is deleted, if the operation is reversible, or what side effects occur. It simply restates the action without elaborating on consequences.

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, efficient sentence with no superfluous wording. It is front-loaded and earns its place, though it may be slightly under-specified given the operation's implications.

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 destructive operation with two required parameters, the description lacks important context: what happens to the vector store upon detachment, whether the action is reversible, and any side effects. The annotations cover the destructive hint, but the description does not elaborate on the operational impact.

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%, so both agent_id and store_id are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate—the schema carries the semantic load.

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 verb 'detach', the resource 'vector store', and the target 'agent'. It is specific enough to convey the core operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling detach_* tools beyond the resource type, which is inherent in the name and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is the inverse of attach_vector_store, nor any conditions or prerequisites for detaching. The description leaves usage entirely to inference.

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