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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and does well: it discloses that the Telegram-side bot survives, chat history is preserved, and the action is reversible via reconnect. It does not cover permission/auth requirements or error cases (e.g. no bot connected), which keeps it from 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?

A single front-loaded sentence: the operation first, then the consequences in a parenthetical, then the precondition. No sentence is filler, and the destructive/reversible facts are grouped where an agent will read them.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation mutation tool, the description supplies the essential behavioral contract (what breaks, what is kept, how to undo) plus the approval gate. Only the authorization requirements and failure behavior are unstated, which is a modest gap.

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?

Only one parameter (agent id) at 100% schema coverage, which the schema already explains as a UUID obtainable from list_agents. The phrase 'from this agent' reinforces the scoping but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, 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 (detach), the exact resource (the bot bound to this agent), and what detaching means operationally (webhook removed, bot stops answering). Clearly separable from connect_telegram_bot, reconnect_telegram_bot, and the other disconnect_* siblings by naming the Telegram bot resource.

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?

Explicitly imposes a prerequisite sequence: only after preview_disconnect_telegram_bot and user approval. Also routes the agent to connect_telegram_bot for the reverse action, so both when-to-use and the alternative are covered.

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