detach_computation_data_assets

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 mentions the action ('detach') but doesn't explain effects like whether this is reversible, if it requires specific permissions, or what happens to the detached assets. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and low schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but lacks details on behavior, usage context, and parameter specifics, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 description adds minimal semantics by implying that 'data_assets' are identified by 'IDs' and are detached from a 'computation', but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't detail parameter formats or constraints. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate more but only provides basic context, meeting the baseline.

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 clearly states the action ('detach') and target resources ('data assets from a cloud workstation session computation'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'detach_data_assets' or 'attach_computation_data_assets', which would require mentioning scope or context differences.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'detach_data_assets' or 'attach_computation_data_assets'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the computation must be active or if data assets need to be attached first, leaving usage unclear.

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