detach_debugger

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add real value: idempotency and automatic retry of incomplete cleanup are non-obvious traits an agent needs to know before retrying. The repeated "owned" qualifier also signals that only resources it created are torn down, which is meaningful scoping. However, it says nothing about failure modes (unknown or foreign debugSessionId), whether the target app keeps running, or what the response contains for a partially cleaned-up session.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the behavioral caveat; nothing is padding. The word "owned" repeated three times is slightly redundant but does reinforce the ownership scoping.

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?

This is a destructive teardown operation with no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only source of safety and return information — and it omits error semantics, the meaning of two of three parameters, and what a caller should do after a partial cleanup. It covers the idempotency story well but leaves too much for a mutation tool of this kind.

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 0% and the description compensates for none of the three parameters. Only debugSessionId is self-explanatory by name; timeoutMs (with its 100–30000 bounds and default) and responseMode (compact vs debug enum) are completely undocumented anywhere, and the description does not explain how timeoutMs interacts with the retry-incomplete-cleanup behavior it advertises.

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?

Uses a specific verb set ("Dispose", "release", "remove") against a specific resource (the debugger connection, its suspension, its transport). An agent can tell this is the teardown counterpart to attach_debugger, though the description never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation has to be inferred from the name and the verb.

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?

Usage is implied: you call this to end a debug session instead of resume_debugger or step_debugger. The note that it is idempotent and will retry incomplete cleanup hints at when to call it (repeatedly, until cleanup succeeds), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites such as an active attached session, and no guidance on what to do if the session is already gone.

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