detach_policy_from_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the response is the server's answer, not a success claim; that a detach on nothing reports that instead of failing; and advises reading the body rather than assuming the link is gone.

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 four sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence provides distinct, useful information without 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does (detach), side effects (policy not deleted), behavioral quirks (response interpretation), and post-confirmation step (list_agent_policies). It is complete for the operation.

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 has two string parameters (agentId, policyId) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explicitly explain their purpose, but the tool name and context imply they identify the agent and policy. With no parameter-level documentation, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'unscope' and clearly states it removes a policy from an agent. It distinguishes this from deleting the policy itself and from other tools like 'attach_policy_to_agent' and 'list_agent_policies'.

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 explains when to use this tool (to remove a link, not delete the policy), warns about the server's response behavior, and recommends confirming with 'list_agent_policies'. It provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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