autocad_detach

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does useful work by disclosing that the operation is non-destructive: it does not close AutoCAD, close a document, or discard drawing changes. What is missing is whether re-attachment is possible or whether the binding must be re-established afterward, but the safety profile is well conveyed.

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?

Two short sentences, scope stated first and non-behavior stated second. Every clause earns its place and nothing is redundant with the name.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema teardown tool, the description covers scope and non-destructive behavior, which is close to what an agent needs. Only the post-condition (state of the session after detaching) is left unstated.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the description appropriately adds no parameter chatter. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 precise verb and resource ('Clear this MCP server's AutoCAD binding') and pairs it with an explicit statement of what it does NOT do, which cleanly separates it from potently destructive siblings like delete_entity or close-document behavior. An agent can identify this as the counterpart to autocad_attach without opening any schema.

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 by the attach/detach pairing in the sibling list, and the negation clause hints at when it is safe, but the description never explicitly says when to call this versus autocad_attach or whether it is required before shutdown. Adequate but with a clear gap in routing guidance.

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