detach_processor

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Remove... and release its state' hints at state destruction, but it doesn't state whether state is recoverable, whether re-attachment reinstates it, or whether the processor continues running. For a state-releasing operation, this is a notable gap.

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 description is a single, tight sentence with zero waste. Front-loads the action clearly. Could arguably add a touch more behavioral detail, but the structure itself is efficient.

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 state-mutating operation with no annotations and no parameter enum constraints, the description handles the basics but underspecifies state effects. There is an output schema which helps with return understanding, but the behavioral ambiguity around 'release its state' and reversibility leaves room for improvement.

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 100% so both parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description's phrases 'Remove from a session' (maps to session_id) and 'a processor' (maps to processor) reinforce parameter roles but add no new formatting/syntax details beyond the schema. Baseline 4 for high coverage with basic reinforcement is reasonable.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Remove a processor from a session') and adds behavioral scope ('and release its state'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like attach_processor and reset_processors, though it doesn't name the alternative explicitly.

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 implies usage context (detaching an attached processor) and the sibling list suggests this pairs with attach_processor, but there's no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives like reset_processors vs detach.

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