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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it explains that env vars are removed, a restart is requested, the running process keeps the vars until replaced, non-matching variable values are left in place, resource data is preserved, other apps retain the resource, and a Valet account is required. It is consistent with idempotentHint=true ('changes nothing') and destructiveHint=true.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is long and at least one sentence is garbled ('detaching while Valet still owes the restart or the removal, which it keeps trying; the answer gives the reason'), which costs clarity. Several clauses could be tightened.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so partially ('the answer gives the reason', 'the answer names it'), plus it discloses auth requirements and edge cases. The awkward phrasing leaves some return behavior ambiguous, preventing a 5.

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 name, org_name and resource are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Detach a resource from an app') and immediately distinguishes it from the destructive sibling by noting 'The resource itself and its data are unchanged.' An agent can tell this apart from destroy_resource without opening a 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?

Usage is implied through behavioral edge cases (detaching a non-attached resource is a no-op, other apps holding the resource keep it), but there is no explicit when-to-use framing and no alternative named (e.g. destroy_resource to delete the resource itself, attach_resource to re-attach). The agent must infer the routing.

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