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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further: it explains exactly what is destroyed (the live linkage), the consequence (future component edits no longer propagate), and a real operational limit (only one level deep, nested references cannot be detached). That is substantial context beyond the annotations.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: the action, the behavioral consequence, and the constraints. The core purpose is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 mutation with no output schema, the definition covers action, effect, side effects, constraints, and auth requirement, while annotations carry the safety profile. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so both recordingId and stepIndex are already documented in the schema, including the 1-based COMPONENT_REF semantics. The description reinforces the COMPONENT_REF context but adds no new parameter syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb (detach/materialize) applied to a precise resource (a component reference step in a test), and even clarifies the mechanism (replacing a live COMPONENT_REF step with a deep copy). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like flow_recording_insert_component and flow_recording_delete_step.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use it (converting a linked component into private, editable steps) and states a hard prerequisite (the test must belong to the authenticated user). It does not explicitly name alternative tools such as flow_recording_replace_step, so it falls short of full when-not/alternatives guidance.

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