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

Goes well beyond the annotations by spelling out the concrete side effects: environment variables are removed, a running app is restarted so it loses them immediately, the resource and its data survive, other apps retain it, and the operation is a no-op when not attached. It also discloses the prerequisite of connecting a Valet account, and its scoping clarifies the destructiveHint (destruction limited to the app's env vars) rather than contradicting it.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and its immediate effect, then the blast-radius, then the no-op and auth note. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padded.

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 burden of describing effects and does so fully: env var removal, app restart, resource data preservation, cross-app effects, idempotency, and the account prerequisite. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents name, org_name, and resource. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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+resource ('Detach a resource from an app') that cleanly separates it from the sibling attach_resource and from detach_connector/detach_site_connector. An agent can pick it out by name and scope without opening any 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?

Explains when detaching is a no-op ('Detaching a resource that is not attached changes nothing') and implies the counterpart attach_resource. It gives clear operating context but never explicitly names alternatives or states when NOT to use it (e.g. to remove the resource itself, use a delete tool).

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