Detach File from Entry

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful nuance by clarifying that the operation removes only the reference, not the actual file, which is valuable context not captured by annotations. However, it does not mention the confirm parameter or any side effects, so it falls short of fully disclosing behavior.

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 one succinct sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Remove'. It conveys the core action and the key nuance ('keep the account-storage file') without any filler or repetition. Every word adds value.

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?

The core purpose is clearly conveyed, and the distinction from file deletion is valuable. However, the tool has four parameters, including a confirm flag whose behavior is not described, and there is no output schema. For a destructive operation, the missing confirmation flow is a significant gap, making the description only partially 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 description must compensate. It implicitly explains entry_id and attachment_id via the action, but bundle_id is left undefined, and the confirm parameter—critical for a destructive operation—is completely omitted. Without an explanation of confirm, an agent may invoke the tool incorrectly.

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 ('Remove an attachment reference') and the specific resource ('from an entry'), while the clause 'but keep the account-storage file' distinguishes this from deleting the file. The title 'Detach File from Entry' reinforces this purpose, making it unambiguous and well-differentiated from sibling tools like bundled_delete_account_attachment.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you want to detach an attachment from an entry but preserve the underlying file. It implicitly contrasts with deletion tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as bundled_delete_account_attachment. The distinction is clear enough for an agent to infer usage, but lacks an explicit 'use this instead of...' statement.

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