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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and non-read-only, and the description adds valuable context: it removes exactly one binding, leaves the knowledge base and other attachments untouched, and is 'Owner-gated.' This goes beyond the annotation hints to clarify both the scope of destruction and access control.

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 with no filler: the first states the action and the required parameter source, and the second tightens the scope with a clear 'only that one binding' qualifier plus the ownership gate. Every word earns its place.

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 single-required-parameter tool with an output schema and full schema documentation, this description is complete. It tells the agent what resource to target, where to get the ID, what will and will not be affected, and the authorization requirement—there is no meaningful gap.

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 already documents attachment_id with a description that names findagent_list_kb_attachments as its source; the description repeats that same provenance. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies because the description does not add meaning beyond what the input schema provides.

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 opens with a precise verb-resource pair: 'Detach a knowledge base from an agent, department, or your personal binding.' It further differentiates the operation by clarifying that only the specified binding is removed, not the knowledge base itself or other attachments, which distinguishes it from delete_kb and similar tools.

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 tells the agent to supply attachment_id from findagent_list_kb_attachments, providing the correct source for the required parameter. It also gives scope guidance by explicitly stating what is not affected, but it does not name alternative sibling tools or list explicit when-not conditions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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