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

The description carries the behavioral burden well beyond the annotations. It discloses that the connection is removed while the connector itself is preserved, that nothing else on the site changes, that pages attempting to call the connector will error, and that the operation requires a connected Valet account. This goes beyond readOnly/destructive hints and explains what is and is not affected.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and effect, followed by useful behavioral context. Some phrasing is slightly redundant — 'This is how the grant attaching made is taken back' and 'detaching is the way to end that reach' cover similar ground — but overall the length is justified by the security and error behavior context.

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?

Complete enough for a mutating tool with no output schema: it explains the intended consequence, the non-effect on the connector and site, the error behavior for still-calling pages, and a prerequisite. The only ambiguity is what exactly 'Requires connecting a Valet account' means operationally, but this is a minor gap.

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 the package parameter. The description mentions the site and connector roles at a conceptual level but does not add detail beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: detaching a connector from a website. It explains the observable effect — pages served from that site can no longer call it — and explicitly distinguishes from deleting or changing other site behavior by noting the connector remains in place and nothing else about the site changes.

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?

Clearly conveys when this tool is appropriate: when the attach grant should be taken back and reach to the connector's exposed tools should end. It gives context about the security implication of attachment and the intended error outcome after detaching, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or exclusion cases.

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