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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly clarifies that the operation is non-destructive to stored data, which is especially valuable because the tool name 'discard' could imply deletion. This is concise and meaningful behavioral context.

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?

The description is two short sentences: the primary action is front-loaded, followed by a single clarifying negative. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant phrasing or repetition of the title.

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 no-parameter session-management tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential facts: what it unbinds and what it does not do. It could optionally mention consequences for unsaved in-memory changes, but the current level is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds no parameter details because none are needed; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate here.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Unbind the Model project from this MCP session') with a clear resource and scope. The addition 'Does not delete MySQL rows' distinguishes it from destructive operations like the model_delete_* siblings.

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 description clearly implies when to use the tool: when the agent wants to end the Model project's attachment to the current MCP session. It provides an important boundary by stating it does not delete MySQL rows, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for deletion.

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