Detach Window

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the write-permission requirement and the graceful ("safely") termination semantics, which is useful auth context, but it says nothing about what happens to views, unsaved edits, or host state after detach.

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 front-loaded sentence carrying the action and the permission prerequisite; no filler, no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, for a host-lifecycle operation the description omits the post-condition (does the project remain open? are views closed?) and any tie-in to the related window/job tools, leaving an agent with an incomplete picture of the side effects.

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 for the description to disambiguate; a 4 is the baseline for no-param tools. No parameter detail is needed or missing.

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 verb+resource: "safely stop the current ArcGIS Pro window host". That distinguishes it from lifecycle siblings such as arcgis_pro_window_status (query) and arcgis_pro_release_project, though it never names those alternatives explicitly so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

It gives one concrete prerequisite (write permission must be enabled) but no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives like window_status or close_views. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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