detach_user_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses that this is a WRITE operation with risk=medium, that it is reversible via attach, and specifically details a refusal behavior for its own credential with a clear rationale. This goes beyond typical transparency.

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 compact and well-structured: a tag line, a one-sentence purpose, a focused warning, and a clean argument list. Every sentence provides necessary information without fluff.

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 relatively simple tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, safety, reversibility, self-refusal caveat, and full parameter semantics. It is complete enough for an agent to successfully invoke the tool in most scenarios.

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 has zero description coverage, but the description explains every parameter: access_key and policies are sourced from iam_users, dry_run provides a preview, and target defaults to config default when omitted. This adds significant semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.

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?

Clearly states the action: 'Detach canned policies from a user.' The verb is specific and the resource is unambiguous. It also distinguishes from the sibling attach_user_policy by noting 'Reversible → 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?

The reversibility note explicitly points to attach_user_policy as the inverse operation, implying usage context. It also warns against using this tool on its own credential. It does not explicitly list alternative tools for different scenarios (e.g., bucket policies), but the sibling set makes the intent clear.

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