detach_carrier_subscriber_host

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it does disclose the safety gates: confirm must be true to apply, dry_run previews without applying. However, it says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, or the effect on an in-progress service, which matters for a mutating detach operation.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args block and a Returns line. Slightly padded by the Returns line, which duplicates the existing output schema, but overall tight and well-ordered.

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?

An output schema exists, so the Returns line is redundant rather than necessary. For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the dry_run/confirm safety model but leaves out reversibility, preconditions, and corrects neither the phantom 'settings' param nor the missing controller coverage.

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 coverage is only 25% (just controller is documented in-schema), so the description must compensate. It documents subscriber_id, confirm, and dry_run, but it lists a 'settings' parameter that does not exist in the schema while omitting the controller parameter — a misleading phantom argument alongside a real gap.

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 and resource ('Detach the gateway host from a UniFi Carrier Fabric subscriber'), which clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from the inverse sibling attach_carrier_subscriber_host. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so routing to detach vs attach still relies on the verb.

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?

There is no guidance on when to detach instead of attach, what precondition (a currently-attached host) must hold, or what happens if no host is attached. The only usage-like content is the inline note that confirm is required unless dry_run, which is a within-tool rule rather than when-to-use vs alternatives.

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