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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent-looking but declared idempotent destructive mutation. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the underlying auto rule is deleted or merely unlinked, whether other campaigns are affected, or what happens if the rule is not attached.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero padding. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than being genuinely concise-but-complete.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and half its parameters undocumented, the description is too thin. It should state the effect on the rule itself and the failure mode when the association does not exist, which the annotations alone cannot convey.

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 only 50% (id is documented as 'Auto-rule id', campaign_id has no description). The phrase 'from a campaign' at least clarifies that campaign_id identifies the campaign the rule is being removed from, but it does not state format, whether the pair must currently exist, or any validation behavior.

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), resource (auto rule) and scope (from a campaign), which an agent can distinguish from attach_auto_rule, create_auto_rule, and update_auto_rule by name alone. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this instead of attach_auto_rule, update_auto_rule, or delete-type alternatives, and no prerequisites such as whether the rule must currently be attached. The only context is implied by the verb 'detach'.

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