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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true; the description goes further by disclosing the exact mutation (space set to null), the 400 failure mode, the return payload, and cost ('Free call'). Good added context beyond structured fields, though it doesn't discuss auth requirements or reversibility.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and effect, then endpoint, side effect, failure mode, and return shape. Every sentence adds distinct information with no filler.

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 idempotent mutation with an output schema, the description covers the action, side effect, failure condition, and return fields. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents both document_id and api_key. The description adds only marginal meaning by framing document_id as coming from an extraction with window_context and echoing it in the endpoint path, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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) and resource (persisted document from its knowledge space) plus the endpoint and exact side effect (espacio_id set to null). An agent can distinguish this from spaces.add_document and document.delete without opening either 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?

Gives one concrete precondition ('Fails with 400 if it had no space') and notes it is a free call, which helpfully implies usage. However, it never explicitly contrasts this detach-and-unassign operation with the sibling claix.document.delete (permanent removal), leaving the when-to-use-vs-alternative choice to inference.

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