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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, yet the description earns credit by elaborating what idempotency means here (detaching an unattached tag succeeds without error) and by adding a precondition not present in structured fields — the same-project scoping requirement. It does not spell out the error surface for cross-project attempts, which keeps it short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the idempotency guarantee, then the precondition. No filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the operation, the idempotency semantics, and the project constraint. It is nearly complete; only failure behavior for cross-project inputs is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, with both prompt_id and tag_id individually documented as numeric ids. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Detach a tag from a prompt") that is inherently distinguishable from its inverse sibling attach-tag-to-prompt-tool. An agent knows exactly what operation this performs without opening the schema.

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 gives an implicit precondition (both prompt and tag must belong to the same project), which helps the agent decide when the call is valid. However, it never explicitly names the alternative tool (attach-tag-to-prompt-tool) or states when-not to use this. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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