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

With no annotations, the description provides the key behavior: it detaches the resource without deleting it, which is helpful. It does not mention potential errors, idempotency, or side effects, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then clarifying the non-destructive nature. No fluff, easy to read.

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?

The tool is simple with a clear output schema (not shown) and the description explains the key behavior. It lacks details on error handling but is adequate for a straightforward removal operation.

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 describes all parameters with 100% coverage, including allowed resource_type values. The description adds a concrete example (webhook) which helps clarify the semantics, but does not add significant new information 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?

The description clearly states the action (remove a single resource from a project) and explicitly differentiates from deleting the resource, which clarifies its scope. However, it does not name sibling tools like remove_webhook_resource or remove_dataset_entities, so it is not fully differentiating among removal 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 implies usage when you want to detach a resource without deleting it, and gives a webhook example. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools for specific resource types, nor does it state when not to use this tool, so guidance is minimal.

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