detach_project

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial context: it preserves the external Godot process, is idempotent on repeat calls, auto-cleans up when the bridge disconnects, distinguishes 'already ended' vs 'never attached' messages, and errors only when a spawned session is active. This is well beyond what the single annotation conveys and is consistent with it.

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 dense and front-loaded, leading with the core action and its key exclusion. It is on the long side and spends a full sentence detailing return values ('message confirming detach plus externalProcessPreserved') that the output schema already covers, which is mild redundancy but not padding.

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 zero-parameter, zero-ambiguity lifecycle tool with an output schema and a destructive annotation, the description covers scope, alternatives, idempotency, error conditions, and cleanup behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters (schema is an empty object), so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, this is adequate; the description's discussion of externalProcessPreserved belongs to the output, not the input.

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?

States a specific action ('clear attached-mode runtime state and remove the injected McpBridge autoload') and immediately delimits its scope by naming what it does NOT do ('Does NOT stop the manually launched Godot process'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings attach_project, run_project, and stop_project, so an agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Use after attach_project when you are done driving the game'), the alternative for other cases ('For spawned sessions (run_project), use stop_project instead'), and notes it is 'mostly optional now' because the session auto-ends on disconnect. When-not/alternative guidance is fully present.

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