Detach Subtask

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a critical behavioral trait: detaching a non-existent or wrong-pair link silently returns success. This is valuable caveat information that an agent could not infer from readOnlyHint=false or idempotentHint=true alone, and it directly affects how the agent should interpret results.

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 front-loaded: it states the core action first, then the inverse relationship, then the critical warning. Every sentence adds useful information with minimal wordiness.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool, the description covers purpose, effect, relationship to siblings, and a non-obvious failure mode. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit warning about the success message, and the annotations cover the read/write and destructive-profile context.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage of both parameters, including their types and descriptions as parent/child card IDs. The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond referencing parentCardId in the verification guidance, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific action, 'Unlink child from parent; cards stay,' which clearly defines what the tool does and its non-destructive effect. It also names itself as the inverse of kaiten_attach_subtask, distinguishing it from the most relevant sibling tool.

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 explicitly frames the tool as the inverse of kaiten_attach_subtask and gives concrete guidance on when it is appropriate. It also includes a warning to verify the link exists via kaiten_list_subtasks(parentCardId) before relying on the success message, which provides actionable usage context.

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