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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the side effect on other collaborators ('其他合作人当场失去这场活动的管理权'), the fact that the activity record survives intact, and the organizer-only permission constraint. These are exactly the consequences an agent needs to warn a user about before a destructive-ish unlink.

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 effect and the scope clarification, then the workflow, then the constraints — a sensible order. Slightly cluttered by the leading '登录;' token and a parenthetical that restates independence twice ('一动不动（它本来就能独立存在）'), but every remaining clause carries operational information.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers permissions, side effects, parameter sourcing, and a confirmation ritual. It does not say what a successful response contains or how failures (not organizer, activity not attached) surface, which is the only meaningful gap left.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining why goalId is absent ('只收 activityRef，不收 goalId——一场活动至多挂在一个目标下'). That resolves a likely agent confusion about a missing parameter rather than repeating schema text.

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 ('这场活动不再属于这个目标了' — detach an activity from a goal) and immediately clarifies the scope of the mutation: the activity itself is untouched, only the ownership link is severed. That clarification alone distinguishes it from siblings like attach_activity_to_goal or update_activity, which an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite chain: call get_collaboration_goal(include:["activities"]) first to obtain the slug, then invoke this tool. It also states the authorization condition ('只有活动的举办人能摘') and a mandatory pre-flight step ('摘之前必须把活动名念给用户确认'), so the agent knows both when to use it and what must happen before calling.

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