detach_data_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the precondition about cloud workstations, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like whether this is a destructive operation, permission requirements, error conditions, or rate limits. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides crucial usage guidelines. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values) and the tool has moderate complexity, the description covers the essential purpose and usage guidelines well. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it should provide more behavioral context about the mutation nature of the operation and parameter details to be fully complete.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'by their IDs' which clarifies the purpose of the data_assets parameter, but doesn't explain what a capsule_id is or provide format details for either parameter. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names.

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'), target resources ('data assets'), and scope ('from a capsule by their IDs'). It distinguishes from sibling 'detach_computation_data_assets' by specifying different use cases, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when the capsule has no running cloud workstations') and when to use an alternative ('For active cloud workstation sessions use detach_computation_data_assets instead'). This provides clear, actionable guidance for tool selection.

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