guests_detach

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not mention whether the operation is irreversible, requires special permissions, handles idempotency (e.g., if the guest is not attached), or what the response indicates. For a mutating operation, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly conveys the action and scope, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with three well-documented parameters, but the lack of annotations and output schema leaves gaps in behavior (e.g., error conditions, side effects, or distinction from guest removal). The description is minimal but not misleading—adequate yet not comprehensive.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The prose mentions 'task, list, or folder' which mirrors the location_type enum but provides no additional semantic detail.

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 a specific verb ('Remove') and clearly identifies the resource ('a guest's access') and the valid targets ('task, list, or folder'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like guests_remove, which would remove the guest entirely.

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 implies usage for removing access from a specific location, and the enum in the schema reinforces this. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over guests_remove or guests_attach, nor any exclusions. The context is implied but not stated.

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