detach_instance

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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive, but the description adds valuable context: it is 'permanently breaking' the link, the frame 'keeps its current appearance,' and layers become 'directly editable.' It also discloses the return shape { ok, nodeId, name, type }, exceeding what annotations or schema provide.

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 two sentences that are tightly packed with purpose, effects, alternative usage, and return value. No filler or repetition of schema details. Each sentence contributes meaning.

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 one-parameter destructive operation, the description covers what the tool does, the permanent consequence, the retention of appearance, the editability result, the alternate tool, and the return format. It is fully complete given the tool's simplicity and existing annotations.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description ('Instance node id to detach'). The tool description does not add additional parameter-level semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the parameter meaning sufficiently.

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 uses the specific verb 'Detach' with a clear resource ('a component instance into a plain frame') and explains the consequence ('permanently breaking its link'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool swap_component by explicitly naming the alternative.

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 states exactly when to use this tool (when you want to detach into a plain frame) and provides an explicit alternative for a different use case: 'To switch an instance to a different component instead of detaching, use swap_component.' This is clear guidance with an exclusion.

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