debug_detach

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the core contract: the process survives the detach and the debug session is closed. This is the most important behavioral trait distinguishing it from kill/cleanup operations, though it does not discuss errors or post-conditions such as whether breakpoints are cleared.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes: action, process outcome, and session outcome.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, this description is sufficient to invoke it correctly. It could add a note about error conditions or relation to debug_kill, but nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema already documents session_id with 100% coverage, including its source ('returned by debug_launch or debug_attach'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the schema-coverage baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb ('Detach'), the resource ('debugged process'), and the intended outcome ('leaving it running', 'close the debug session'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling debug_kill, which would terminate the process.

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 phrase 'leaving it running' provides clear usage context: use this when you want to end debugging but keep the target process alive, as opposed to debug_kill. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the behavior is unambiguous for this debugger toolset.

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