detach_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the primary effect—converting an instance to a regular frame—but does not mention side effects such as losing the link to the master component, whether overrides are preserved, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a meaningful gap for a 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?

One clean, front-loaded sentence states the action and the outcome with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential input and outcome. It is adequate for invoking the tool correctly, though mentioning the loss of the component link would make it fully complete.

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 schema already has 100% coverage: nodeId is required and described as 'Instance to detach'. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('detach'), a specific resource ('a component instance'), and the resulting state ('a regular frame'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like swap_component or reset_overrides without needing to open the schema.

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 use case is implied: use this when you want to break an instance's connection to its component and turn it into a plain frame. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative tool might be preferable for related operations like swapping components or resetting overrides.

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