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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states the operation is idempotent (matching the idempotentHint annotation) and clarifies that the task remains on the board, which is a non-obvious side effect. It does not contradict annotations. It could mention whether the task's sprint field is set to null or moved to a backlog, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: the usage trigger, the key non-destructive behavior, and the idempotency guarantee. It is front-loaded with the action and avoids any fluff.

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-parameter, non-destructive, idempotent operation, the description is nearly complete. It covers the action, the non-deletion guarantee, and the board persistence. It does not describe the return value, but there is no output schema, and for a simple mutation tool this is a minor gap. The sibling list provides enough context for an agent to distinguish this from related tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter 'taskId'. The description does not explicitly explain that 'taskId' is the identifier of the task to detach, but the tool name and description make it obvious. The schema already provides the UUID format and pattern, so the description adds little beyond what is inferable. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the parameter is self-evident from context.

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 clearly states the action ('detach a task from its current sprint'), the resource (task), and the key distinction from deletion ('without deleting it', 'remains on the board'). It also explicitly names the sibling tool 'add_task_to_sprint' in the context, making the purpose 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool ('when the user wants to detach a task from its current sprint') and explicitly states what it does not do ('without deleting it'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the sibling list includes 'add_task_to_sprint' which is the obvious inverse, and the description's clarity makes the usage context strong.

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