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

Annotations only signal mutability and destructiveness, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: objects go INERT, specific behavior for forms/data/booking pages, retained data, and reversibility via assign_to_project. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives the agent a full mental model of side effects.

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 dense sentences pack essential behavioral, contextual, and usage information with zero filler. The most critical insight ('nothing is deleted') is front-loaded, and the rationale is stated compactly.

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?

Given the annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers what happens, what does not happen, the inert state consequences, data preservation, re-attachment path, and recommended usage scenarios. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to invoke the tool and what to expect afterward.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to re-explain them. The description's grouping of 'forms, collections or booking pages' loosely maps to the parameter names but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Detaches') and the exact resources (forms, collections, booking pages) from their project, and explicitly contrasts itself with deletion ('nothing is deleted'). It clearly differentiates from delete_* siblings and names the complementary assign_to_project tool.

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?

Gives explicit usage guidance: use before delete_* on something empty or to move an object between sites. It also names assign_to_project as the re-attachment mechanism, making the relationship to the key sibling unambiguous.

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