arvan_detach_volume

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral details beyond 'detach', such as side effects on the server or volume, required server state, or reversibility. It does not enhance transparency beyond the annotations.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded. However, it omits necessary detail, so it is under-specified rather than properly concise. Every sentence earns its place, but a bit more context would improve utility without losing conciseness.

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 lack of output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, required permissions, or confirmation of success. While the tool is simple, the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate but fails to explain any parameter. The description only names the action, not the required IDs for volume and server, nor the optional region. The schema itself provides minimal info (no descriptions), so more parameter context is needed.

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 the resources 'volume' and 'server'. It is specific and easily distinguishes from sibling tools like 'arvan_attach_volume' and 'arvan_detach_floating_ip'.

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 vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, state requirements, or when not to use. Among siblings, there are related attach/detach tools but no comparative context.

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