detach_instances

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly labels the operation as destructive, mandates confirm=true, and explains parameter effects (e.g., should_terminate, should_decrement_capacity). However, it does not describe what the tool returns or error conditions, even though an output schema exists. Overall, it provides strong behavioral insight.

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 concise, fitting in a few lines, and front-loads the destructive warning and action. It uses a clear Args section with each parameter on a new line. It could be more structured (e.g., bullet list) but is already efficient and scannable.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, 6 parameters, and existing output schema, the description covers the core: what it does, required confirm, parameter defaults. It omits explanation of the output or potential side effects (e.g., what happens to capacity). Still, it is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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%, but the description richly explains all 6 parameters with examples (e.g., cluster_id 'o-abc12345', instance_ids 'i-abc123,i-def456') and meanings (confirm as safety guard, defaults for should_terminate and should_decrement_capacity). This adds essential semantics beyond the schema's bare titles and types.

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 starts with 'DESTRUCTIVE: Detach and optionally terminate instances from an AWS Ocean cluster,' which clearly states the action (detach/terminate), the resource (instances), and the scope (Ocean cluster). This is specific and actionable, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'remove_instances', the purpose is unmistakable.

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 warns 'DESTRUCTIVE' and states 'Requires confirm=true,' giving a rough usage context, but it does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_instances' or when not to use it. Usage guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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