project_detach

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation is scoped to the active local project association and that knowledge, sources, receipts, capsule history, and project files remain unchanged, which reduces the risk of assuming a destructive teardown. It does not detail side effects like reversibility or whether the actor association is cleared.

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 entire description is one front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and exclusions. Every phrase adds information; there is no filler.

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 operation the description is adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations it omits the result/return behavior and does not clarify the role of actor. It also leaves prerequisites implicit (e.g., a currently attached active local project).

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 50% (project_root is described as 'Any path inside the Git project'), but the description adds no parameter-level meaning and the required actor parameter is left undefined. At this coverage level, the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 names a specific verb ('Detach') and a specific scope ('the active local project association'), and further clarifies boundaries by listing what is left unchanged. This distinguishes it from destructive or broader project operations among the siblings, notably project_attach.

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?

Usage is implied: call it to remove the active local project association. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of project_attach as the inverse, and no conditions such as 'only when a project is currently attached.'

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