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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the key destructive-scope detail ('without deleting the reference or its other attachments'), the idempotency contract for retries, and the permission enforcement layers — meaningful 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?

The action and its scope are correctly front-loaded in the first sentence, but the third sentence ('Item updates require the current version from get_tasks...') does not map to any parameter or behavior of this detach tool and reads as boilerplate borrowed from an update tool.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and there is no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It discloses side effects, idempotency, and permissions adequately, but never identifies what 'id' refers to (attachment vs. item) and offers no guidance on the result of a successful detach.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It does add genuine semantics for requestId (unique, stable across retries), but the required 'id' parameter is never explained, and the sentence about 'current version' references no parameter in the schema, leaving one of two params undocumented.

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+resource ('Remove one attachment') and a precise scope boundary ('without deleting the reference or its other attachments'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like resource_attach, association_delete, and relationship_delete. An agent can tell what it does and what it does not do 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 relevant operating context — reuse requestId on retry, current version retrieved via get_tasks/get_items/get_workspace, permissions enforced across workspace/project/account — but never names an alternative tool or states an explicit when-not condition. Usage is implied rather than contrasted against siblings.

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