Detach a specific file from a knowledge base without deleting the entire base. Provide the knowledge ID and file ID to remove the file.
Detach a file from this base. Retain the shared file; do not delete the whole base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_id | Yes | ||
| knowledge_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, so the description's job is to add context. It does clarify that the operation preserves the shared file and doesn't delete the base, which is valuable context about scope. However, it doesn't explain consequences for references or permissions, nor does it detail idempotency, which is not covered by 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 two short sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('Detach a file from this base') and adds the retention constraint immediately. 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema) and annotations covering destructive behavior, the description is mostly adequate. However, the complete lack of parameter explanation and lack of any mention of return value or side effects beyond base retention leaves some gaps for an agent unfamiliar with 'knowledge' concepts.
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%, and the description does not explain what knowledge_id and file_id represent or how they relate. It only says 'file from this base' which hints at file_id being the file and knowledge_id the base, but that's minimal. With zero coverage, the description provides insufficient compensation for understanding the parameters.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Detach') and resource ('file from this base'), distinguishing it from destructive deletion. It differentiates from siblings by implying it's not a whole-base deletion, but it doesn't explicitly name a sibling like knowledge_get_file or knowledge_list for contrast.
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 implies usage for detaching a file while retaining the shared file, and the exclusion of deleting the whole base is a when-not. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like knowledge_update or rag_get_file, and provides no conditions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.