df_unassign_from_fact_table

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by warning that the operation 'PERMANENTLY DELETES DATA IN DATAFORGE' while also clarifying that the element remains in the RMD. This helps the agent understand the destructive scope and the fact that this is a detachment, not a full deletion. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, or destructiveHint=true annotations.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with the destructive warning front-loaded. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and there is no unnecessary elaboration.

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 destructive operation with five required parameters, no output schema, and low parameter-documentation coverage, this description is too thin. It explains the high-level action but leaves the agent to infer parameter roles, exact data affected, and how this operation relates to the assign tool and delete siblings.

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 only 40%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. It does not explain what fact_table_id or element_id refer to, nor does it add semantic detail about the element_type enum. The description only loosely maps to 'element' and 'fact table.'

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 verb and resource: 'Detach one element from a fact table.' It also clarifies scope and distinguishes this from deletion tools by noting that 'The element itself stays in the RMD.' The tool's purpose is immediately recognizable even without opening 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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like df_delete_measure, df_delete_dimension, or df_assign_to_fact_table. The phrase 'element itself stays in the RMD' implies a use case, but no direct comparison or exclusion is provided.

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