detach_targets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does add one key behavioral guarantee: the operation does not terminate the 1C processes. However, it does not mention side effects such as whether the debugger connection is removed, whether targets remain visible, or what happens to existing breakpoints, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and immediately adds the key caveat about not terminating processes, making every word earn 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description gives enough to understand the intended action, but it omits important context such as prerequisites (targets must be attached), expected result or return behavior, and how this differs from disconnect_debugger. Since there is no output schema or annotations, these gaps make the description only minimally complete.

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 the 'targetIds' parameter beyond the schema's basic type and constraints. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but no additional guidance is given about where the IDs come from or how they relate to other debugger tools, so the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 ('Detach'), identifies the resource ('targets'), and adds a meaningful constraint ('without terminating their 1C processes'). This clearly distinguishes the action from related operations like attach_targets or suspend_target, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable.

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 when to use the tool: when targets should be detached while their processes are kept alive. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it—for example, when a full disconnect or suspension is more appropriate—so guidance is only 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.