bort_chat_detach

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait – the chat is not deleted, only unlinked, and remains in the catalog. However, it says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or whether both identifiers must resolve to an existing link.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the action and appends the key side-effect clarification in parentheses. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme brevity leaves little room for the guidance an agent needs.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits parameter usage, preconditions, and failure behavior. Only the state outcome (chat persists) is covered.

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?

Both parameters have 0% schema description coverage and no enums, and the description adds no meaning for chat_id or project_id. It is unclear whether either or both are required to identify the link, especially since the schema marks both nullable with default null.

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 verb (detach) and resource (chat from project) in one clear phrase, and the parenthetical clarifies the object that survives the operation. It does not name the inverse sibling bort_chat_attach, so sibling differentiation is only inferable from the name.

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 parenthetical implies when this is appropriate versus deleting a chat, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the alternative bort_chat_attach, and no prerequisites or preconditions described.

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