Detach private network port

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent, openWorld), it discloses that the backend enforces ownership, feature availability and 2FA locks, that an accepted operation is pending rather than proof of connectivity, and it fully explains the polling contract (in_progress/reason_code/reason_kind, next_check_seconds, failure only on reason_kind failure) and the no-auto-retry recovery rule. This is substantial context the structured fields do not carry.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the polling guidance is genuinely useful, but the single dense paragraph repeats the idempotency/recovery rule that the schema's idempotencyKey description already states and could be materially shortened. Length is defensible for a destructive async operation but not tightly edited.

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 and five parameters, the description compensates well: it covers auth scopes, ownership/2FA enforcement, pending-vs-complete semantics, and the polling loop. It references "the returned operation/resource" without describing the shape, a minor gap, but an agent has enough to call and follow up correctly.

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 80%, and the schema already documents port_id, restart, and idempotencyKey in detail. The description adds only light framing — "Use the PORT generation" for expected_generation and confirming a restart — without new syntax or format guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ("Detach the owned server port"), making the mutation unambiguous. It does not explicitly name the inverse sibling (attach_private_network_port) or list_private_network_ports as alternatives, so an agent must infer sibling differentiation rather than being told.

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?

It gives real preconditions: "Requires explicit networking:read... or networking:manage," "Read current capabilities and owned resource state first," and "obtain approval for the exact change." It also ties the restart flag to prior user authorization. It stops short of naming alternative tools or a when-not-to-use condition.

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