Detach network VPN gateway

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

Far exceeds the annotations (which only declare destructive/idempotent/openWorld). It discloses that the paid period and devices survive while the gateway is recreated, the exact permission scopes, backend enforcement of ownership/feature/2FA locks, the pending-not-success semantics of accepted operations, and the in_progress/reason_code polling contract with explicit prohibition on automatic retry.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and consequence, then layers permissions, safety, and polling. Dense but nearly every clause carries operational value; the polling/recovery passage is long, though justified for an async destructive operation.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: it explains the returned operation/resource, the in_progress flag, reason_code semantics, waiting behavior, and recovery on transport uncertainty. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100% so the two params are already documented, but the description adds real semantic guidance for idempotencyKey ('reuse only the original key and unchanged request; never automatically retry') and implies gateway_id must refer to an owned resource, going beyond the schema text.

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?

States a specific verb (detach) and resource (account VPN from its network), plus the concrete side effects: keeps paid period and devices but recreates the gateway. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling attach_network_vpn_gateway and delete_network_vpn_gateway.

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?

Gives prerequisites and gating conditions: 'when supported', 'Read current capabilities and owned resource state first', 'obtain approval for the exact change', and explicit scope requirements (networking:read vs networking:manage). It does not name alternative tools to consider, so it falls short of a 5.

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