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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the change is deferred to the next tool call, and the client's tool list may remain stale until reconnect — exactly the kind of caveat an agent needs to avoid re-verifying or looping. It stops short of saying whether the detach is reversible via tools_attach.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the timing caveat second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers action, effect timing, and a notable client-side caveat — no output schema is needed since nothing is returned of interest. Only the reversibility/discovery path is left implicit.

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% with a single, well-documented 'slug' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no slug format hints or pointers to where valid slugs come from (e.g., tools_list_available).

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 specific verb and object ('Detach a tool from your session'), which is unambiguous and clearly the inverse of the tools_attach sibling. It does not explicitly name tools_attach or tools_list_available, but the intent is readable without opening any 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated — an agent infers it should call this to remove a tool from the active set. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use framing, no mention of how to discover a slug, and no reference to tools_attach as the way back.

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