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

Annotations already state destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries less burden. It nonetheless adds useful context by clarifying the destructive scope: only selected attachments are removed; the underlying Asset records are kept. This prevents an agent from assuming the assets themselves are deleted.

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 a single well-formed sentence with two clauses, both of which carry essential information: the operation ('Removes selected attachments') and its key behavioral caveat ('Asset records stay in the library'). It is front-loaded and contains zero 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 an operation with only two primitive parameters, no output schema, and a clear high-level effect, the description plus annotations fully cover the necessary behavior. The library-preservation caveat fills the main possible misunderstanding around destructiveness. No additional return format or failure details are required at this complexity level.

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%, and both post_id and asset_ids are documented in the schema with straightforward descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning, but because the schema fully covers both params, a baseline 3 is warranted.

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 explicitly says 'Removes selected attachments', giving a specific action and resource, and immediately clarifies that the Asset records remain in the library—distinguishing this detach operation from an asset deletion or from adding assets. This makes its purpose unambiguous even among sibling tools like invoke_attach_assets_to_post.

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?

The description implies the usage context: use this when you need to remove assets from a post while preserving them in the library. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with the attach/reorder siblings or states when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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