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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so restating idempotency adds nothing new. The one genuine addition beyond structured fields is the same-project constraint on prompt and tag, which is a real precondition. It still doesn't say what happens on a project mismatch (error vs silent no-op) or what the response looks like, leaving a meaningful gap for a mutating tool.

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?

Three short sentences: operation first, then the idempotency nuance, then the precondition. Nothing is redundant padding and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that already flag destructive and idempotent behavior, the description covers purpose, idempotency, and the cross-entity precondition. The remaining gap is error/failure behavior on a project mismatch, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 100%, with both prompt_id and tag_id documented inline, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only the relational constraint that both ids must resolve within the same project, which is useful but not parameter-level syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ("Detach a tag from a prompt"), which unambiguously contrasts with the sibling attach-tag-to-prompt-tool. It does not explicitly name that sibling or any alternative, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation, but an agent can identify the operation from the first sentence alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and by the stated precondition that prompt and tag must share a project, which tells the agent when the call is valid. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over attach-tag-to-prompt-tool or delete-tag-tool, nor any note about what to do when the entities are in different projects.

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