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

The annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description goes further by stating 'This deletes the reference asset permanently and cannot be undone.' This clearly discloses consequences beyond the boolean hint and aligns with the annotations. There is no contradiction.

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 sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the essential prerequisite and the irreversible consequence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It explains what the tool does, how to get the required asset id, and the permanent nature of the operation. No meaningful contextual gap remains.

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%, so the description does not need to repeat parameter meanings. It adds value by telling the agent where the asset_id comes from — list_shot_continuity_references — which is not present in the schema. This improves correct invocation.

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 action and resource: 'Detach one continuity reference from a shot.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings like attach/upload/list by emphasizing permanent deletion of the reference asset, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 a concrete prerequisite: 'List them first with list_shot_continuity_references to get the asset id.' This effectively tells the agent what to do before invoking the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple deletion workflow the guidance is clear.

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