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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false... destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: what survives (the org copy), that the agent is rebuilt, the no-op idempotency consequence, and the Valet-account auth requirement. It does not describe rebuild downtime or any response, but the added context is substantive.

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, then layering scope, edge cases, and auth in short sentences that mostly earn their place. Slightly repetitive around the organization/catalog copy but no wasted padding.

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 mutation tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors an agent needs: reversibility, idempotency, and auth. It leaves out any note on the rebuilt agent's state or timing, 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds meaning for the 'skill' parameter by explaining the built-in case ('Give a built-in's name to detach Valet's default of it'). The org_name fallback is covered in the schema rather than the description, keeping it just above baseline.

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 skill from an agent') and immediately clarifies the scope ('the skill stays in the organization'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling attach_skill. An agent can tell what this does and what it does not delete without opening the 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 the operational context well: the skill persists for other agents, built-in names behave specially, and detaching an unattached skill is a no-op. It does not explicitly name attach_skill as the inverse alternative, so it stops just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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