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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it clarifies that the post itself is untouched and that an already-live automation continues running, i.e. this detaches rather than deletes. It omits edge cases such as behavior when no automation is attached or permission requirements.

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?

Four short clauses: the action first, the effect on post/automation second, the parameter guidance third, and the negative constraint last. The quoted example costs little and improves matching; no sentence 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 two-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, side effects, and parameter selection adequately. Only the no-op/error case when no automation exists is left unstated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'Identify the post by `postName` when you have no id' explains the relationship and fallback order between the two otherwise undocumented parameters. It does not describe id format or whether supplying both is legal, leaving a small gap.

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 ('Remove the comment automation from a scheduled post') and immediately distinguishes itself from enable/activate siblings with 'Never turns anything on.' An agent can identify this as the detach-only operation 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?

Provides the natural-language trigger phrase ('remove the automation from Tuesday's post') and a negative usage rule that steers away from activation tools. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative (e.g. delete vs. detach tooling), so it is contextual rather than fully routing.

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