xref_detach

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

The only annotation is readOnlyHint=false, which merely signals a write; the description adds real value by disclosing that the operation is destructive and that both the definition and its references are removed. It does not mention undo/irreversibility guarantees or required preconditions, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Short and front-loaded, but 'destructive' is asserted three times across the body and the Disambiguation line ('Destructive; removes dependency from drawing') largely restates the side-effects line. Redundant rather than efficient.

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?

With one documented parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavior for a destructive one-shot operation. Missing only operational context such as whether the XREF must be unloaded first or whether the removal is undoable.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema's own description already says 'permanently detach and remove', so the description adds no meaning beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies for a single fully-documented parameter.

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 and resource ('Detach one existing XREF definition from the active document'), which is clearly distinguishable from attach/reload/unload semantics. It stops short of naming the sibling it is contrasted with (xref_unload), so differentiation is partial.

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 'Disambiguation: Destructive; removes dependency from drawing' line implies this is the permanent-removal option, but it never states when to choose this over xref_unload or that unload is reversible while detach is not. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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