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

Goes well beyond the flat destructiveHint=true: it discloses exactly what gets destroyed (a catalog skill attached to this agent alone is deleted with the attachment, while an org skill survives), that the agent is rebuilt, and the auth prerequisite. The idempotency claim also concretely explains the idempotentHint annotation rather than restating 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?

Five short sentences, each front-loaded with a distinct fact (action, side effects per skill type, rebuild, idempotency, prerequisite). Nothing is redundant and no sentence fails to earn its place.

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 3-param mutation with no output schema, this covers the consequential behavior: what is destroyed vs preserved, the agent rebuild side effect, no-op behavior, and the account requirement. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and predict the outcome.

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, skill (including the catalog:<name>/org:<name> ref syntax), and org_name. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (detach) and resource (skill from an agent), and distinguishes it from sibling detach_resource/detach_channel and the inverse attach_skill by naming the exact relationship being severed. An agent can identify the operation 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?

The 'detaching a skill that is not attached changes nothing' line tells the agent this is safe to attempt blindly, and the org-vs-catalog distinction guides the correct target choice. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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