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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's real value is specifying exactly what is destroyed: the attachment plus the variable when a value exists, or the declaration when it does not. It also explicitly reassures that the tenant's own service is untouched and holds nothing to delete, which meaningfully refines the destructive profile without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the action, and each adds behavioral information. However, the metaphorical phrasing ('stops asking', 'give an alias back') costs precision that would not have taken more space to state directly.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the crucial branch logic and the no-collateral-damage guarantee, which is enough for an agent to invoke it safely. The remaining hole is parameter meaning (especially idempotency_key), which the annotations cannot supply.

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 0% across four parameters, and the description never mentions project_id, offering, alias, or idempotency_key. The words 'alias' and 'value' appear only as narrative, not as parameter meaning; notably the idempotency_key is unexplained despite idempotentHint=false.

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 conveys the effect (returning an alias to the platform and removing what was declared) but never plainly states 'detaches the reference to a tenant-supplied external service,' leaning on metaphor ('give an alias back'). The two-branch explanation of outcomes is specific, yet the core resource is only inferable from the title and the attach_external sibling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus attach_external, list_external, delete_service, or on preconditions such as whether the service must already be declared. The reader learns what happens, not when to choose it.

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