detach_instance

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) and non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the return format ({ ok, nodeId, name, type }) and the notion of breaking the component link, providing moderate additional context. However, it does not discuss side effects or permissions.

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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the action and outcome, plus the return format. No extraneous information, earning its place efficiently.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the effect on the instance. No gaps given the low complexity.

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 100% for the single parameter 'instanceId', so the schema already clearly explains it. The description adds no further semantic meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for complete schema 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 clearly states the action ('Detach an instance into a plain frame') and the result ('breaks the component link'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_instance' or 'swap_component' which serve different purposes.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's purpose alone.

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