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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by detailing the permission requirements (owner vs. builder). This is useful for predicting whether the call will succeed and for setting expectations about access control.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core operation, and the second adds a valuable permission nuance. There is no redundant or filler content; every sentence contributes useful 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?

With three required parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description should do more to make the tool safely invocable. It omits how the parameters map to the operation, whether detaching affects the underlying credential, and any further behavioral details. The permission note is helpful but not sufficient for a complete picture.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation for agentId, buildId, or exposedCredentialId. While the parameter names are somewhat self-descriptive, the description does not connect 'login' to exposedCredentialId or clarify that buildId refers to the revision. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Detach a login from a revision.' It is more specific than the name alone, and the additional detail about personal vs. team-shared logins adds scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like detachRevisionSecret, but the resource difference is largely self-evident.

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 provides an authorization context: personal logins require owner permissions, team-shared require builder permissions. This helps an agent gauge whether the operation is permitted. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over related tools like attachRevisionLogin or detachRevisionSecret, so guidance is only partial.

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