detach_skill_from_workflow

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the operation only removes the link, the skill persists, and the response format requires careful reading (server may report nothing to remove). This adds valuable context beyond the tool's name and schema.

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 three sentences, starting with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, effect on skill, and response interpretation. No unnecessary words.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, what happens to the skill, and how to interpret the response. It could mention prerequisites (skill must be attached) but is fairly complete for a simple unlinking 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but does not. The parameters 'skillId' and 'workflowId' are only referenced by name in the description, with no added explanation of their format, source, or constraints. The names are self-explanatory but the description could have provided more 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 uses a specific verb 'Unscope' along with the resource 'skill from a workflow'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'attach_skill_to_workflow' and 'detach_skill_from_agent' by stating that only the link is removed and the skill is not deleted.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool (to unlink a skill from a workflow). It provides guidance on interpreting the response and implies that skill deletion is a different action. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives.

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