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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond that: the operation is limited to your own Rokha, the listing itself is not modified, and a Bearer JWT is required.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by scope and the auth precondition. No filler or repetition.

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, two-parameter detach operation with no output schema, the description covers action, ownership scope, non-effect on the listing, and authentication. What remains unstated (return value, error behavior) is minor given the annotation coverage.

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 `kind` (with its enum) and `listing_id` are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail such as accepted id formats, so the baseline 3 for schema-heavy coverage 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 specific verb ("Detach") and resource ("an add-on from your Rokha"), which clearly separates it from the sibling rokha_addon_add. It is unambiguous about the operation, though it does not explicitly name the add/remove sibling pair as alternatives.

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?

"Only your own" implies the scope in which this tool applies, and the untouched-listing note hints at when it is safe to use. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not framing and no named alternative (e.g. rokha_addon_add) to route the agent.

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