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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds transparency by stating that the bot stops reading the brief and acting as the role from its next turn, while the role, brief, and history remain unchanged. This clarifies the scope of destruction and what is preserved, which annotations don't convey. No contradiction.

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?

The description is concise but information-dense, with the primary purpose front-loaded. The routing section and sensitive-tier note are separate and add value without bloating. Every sentence 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 destructive action with no output schema, the description includes crucial context like persistence of role data, sensitive-tier approval process, and the host optionality. It could mention the effect on the role's history more explicitly, but it's already implied. The approval note is unusually helpful.

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 has 100% coverage of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra detail about the parameters themselves, but the schema descriptions are sufficient. The description does not compensate for any lack, but the schema covers everything, so a 4 is justified because the schema is doing the heavy lifting and the description doesn't hurt.

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 states a specific verb ('take back the key') and resource ('a bot was using to wear a role'), and clearly distinguishes from the sibling attach_agent_key by describing the reverse action. It also includes concrete trigger phrases, making it unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly lists operator phrases that should trigger this tool ('detach', 'revoke the key', 'stop my bot running <role>'), and provides a routing rule. It also mentions the condition of a key leak, which is an alternative use case. No exclusions are stated, but the guidance is clear.

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