kd_detach

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the normal sequence—resume the target if needed, then stop kd.exe—and the force parameter documents the kill-without-resume path. However, it does not state whether force leaves the target suspended, what happens if no debugger is attached, or any permission or side-effect implications.

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 a single sentence with no filler. 'Resume the target if needed' and 'stop kd.exe' are both load-bearing, and the description is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the inputs are fully covered by the schema and the description explains the primary action and normal behavior. It is not fully complete because it lacks explicit when-to-use context and leaves some force-path consequences to the parameter description rather than the main description, but it is adequate for correct invocation in most cases.

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 100%, so the vm and force parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond implying the conditional behavior of the non-force path, which is also covered by the schema.

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 names a concrete action—'stop kd.exe'—and adds the key conditional 'Resume the target if needed,' which clearly identifies this as the detach/cleanup operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kd_attach, kd_break, and kd_go without relying on the tool name alone.

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 purpose is implied by 'stop kd.exe' and the sibling context, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like kd_go or kd_break. There is no guidance on when the force option is appropriate or how this relates to the rest of the kd_* workflow.

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