detach_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only states the action without noting side effects, such as whether the script file is removed or only unlinked, or whether the operation is reversible. It also does not mention error conditions or permission requirements.

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 of six words, efficiently front-loading the core action. However, it is so terse that it omits almost all supporting context, though that is more relevant to completeness than structure.

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 and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not specify the effect on the scene, whether the script is deleted or just detached, or what happens on invalid node paths, leaving significant gaps for 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?

The schema shows a single required string node_path with 0% description coverage. The description connects node_path to 'a node' but does not explain the expected path format (e.g., absolute vs. relative, NodePath syntax) or provide any examples, so it adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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 resource (a script from a node), distinguishing it from sibling tools like attach_script and detach_project. The verb is specific and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as attach_script. There is no mention of prerequisites, required context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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