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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's real job is to bound the destruction, which it does well: only this one link is removed, the document is never deleted, and other attachments stay intact. It adds the useful post-condition that an unattached document remains readable; it does not cover failure modes (e.g., detaching a non-existent link) or permission behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the scope constraint and followed by the preservation guarantee. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers what is destroyed and what survives, which is the critical information. Missing only secondary details such as behavior when the attachment does not exist and whether the call is idempotent.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the expectedProjectId targeting semantics and the cellId scope note. The description reinforces the single-attachment semantics of the documentId/cellId pair but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a precise verb (removes) and a precisely scoped resource (ONE specific attachment between a document and a block), and explicitly contrasts this with deletion of the document itself. An agent can distinguish it from delete_document and anchor_document without inspecting either 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?

Clearly frames the scenario (detaching one attachment while preserving the document and its other attachments) and notes the document remains reachable via list_documents. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives (anchor_document to add, delete_document to remove entirely), so routing guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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