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

Annotations mark this destructive, and the description adds important nuance: existing typed cases keep their payload and pinned schema version even though validation stops. This clarifies exactly what is and is not affected, which goes beyond the bare destructiveHint.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the primary action first and the preservation caveat second. Every sentence contributes necessary information.

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, low-complexity operation with annotations describing safety and idempotency, the description fully covers what the tool does and its important side effect on existing cases. No output schema is needed for correct invocation.

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?

The single queue_id parameter is fully documented in the input schema with type, format, pattern, and a description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so schema coverage of 100% carries the weight.

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 names the specific operation ('Stop validating new cases on a queue') with a clear resource (queue JSON schema) and explains the practical effect of detaching it. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like attachQueueJsonSchema and replaceQueueJsonSchema.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over attachQueueJsonSchema, replaceQueueJsonSchema, or other schema-related tools. No alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion cases are mentioned.

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