detach_skill_from_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: the response is the server's answer, not a success claim; a detach with nothing to remove reports that instead of failing; and the skill itself is not deleted. This is comprehensive for a simple mutation tool.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying essential information: action, effect, response handling, and follow-up. No extraneous words, front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all necessary context: what it does, side effects, response interpretation, and verification step. It is complete for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 description does not explain the two required parameters (agentId, skillId) beyond what their names imply. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate but adds no additional meaning or constraints, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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 clearly states it 'Unscope a skill from a agent' and clarifies it only removes the link, not the skill itself. It distinguishes from deleting and from attach operations, and the mention of 'list_agent_skills' for confirmation differentiates it from sibling detach tools like 'detach_skill_from_workflow'.

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 explicitly says when to use (to unscope a skill from an agent), provides guidance on interpreting the server response (read the body, do not assume success), and names an alternative ('list_agent_skills') to confirm the result. It also implies when not to use (e.g., if you want to delete the skill) by stating the skill stays available.

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