compose_detach

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

The description adds 'Compose a transaction' which clarifies this is not broadcasting, and 'detach ... back to an address' describes the effect. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by indicating a state-changing but non-executing action. However, it does not mention return format or side effects on the UTXO, so not a full 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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes only necessary information. It is concise and free of filler or redundant details.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not state what the composed transaction looks like or that it returns an unsigned transaction. Given the complexity of compose tools and the many sibling compose_* tools, more detail (e.g., return value, typical workflow) would be helpful. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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% — all three parameters already have descriptions. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; 'back to an address' merely echoes the 'destination' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Compose' and the specific resource 'a transaction to detach Counterparty tokens from a UTXO back to an address'. This distinguishes it from siblings like compose_attach (which attaches tokens) and compose_send, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage is implied by the verb 'detach' — use when you want to remove Counterparty tokens from a UTXO. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., UTXO must have attached tokens), and no comparison with compose_attach or compose_movetoutxo. The only guideline is the fee rate note in the schema, not in the description.

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