detach_proxy

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

There are no annotations, and the description discloses zero behavioral traits: no side effects, destructiveness, mutation, or state-change implications. An agent cannot determine whether this operation affects project structure, media files, or requires a specific selection state.

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 one-sentence description is short but vacuous; it primarily repeats the tool name. Under-specification is not true conciseness—the sentence does not earn its place by adding informative content.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an opaque name, the description must carry the full burden of explaining operation semantics, prerequisites, and side effects. It provides none of this, making the tool effectively undocumented.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, even though the description adds no explicit 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 'Premiere Pro expanded operation: detach proxy' merely restates the tool name and adds a generic 'expanded operation' label. It doesn't define what detaching a proxy does—whether it removes proxy links, deletes proxy files, or toggles proxy state—nor does it distinguish itself from related tools like manage_proxies or has_proxy.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisite conditions (e.g., selected clips with proxies, existing proxy files) or contrast with sibling tools like has_proxy, manage_proxies, or set_offline.

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