detach_iso

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't explain effects (e.g., if the server restarts, if data is lost, permissions required, or rate limits). This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented for a mutation tool.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and outcomes, failing to provide sufficient context for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 doesn't mention the 'id' parameter at all. It fails to add any meaning beyond the bare schema, such as what the ID refers to (server ID, ISO ID, or another resource) or format examples, leaving the parameter's purpose unclear.

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 action ('detach') and the resource ('ISO from a server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'attach_iso' beyond the opposite action, missing explicit contrast in usage context.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'attach_iso' or other server modification tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether an ISO must be attached first, or when this operation is appropriate.

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