notebook_detach_environment

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, but the description adds valuable context by specifying exactly what gets deleted: the environment binding in definition metadata, not the environment resource itself. This helps prevent confusion with environment_delete. It does not mention reversibility or side effects, but the core mutation is clearly scoped.

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 sentence with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the mechanism follows naturally. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 destructive operation, the description combined with annotations and schema coverage is largely complete. It explains what is mutated, what is not mutated, and all required parameters are documented. The only minor gap is the absence of any description of the return value or explicit usage prerequisites.

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 100%: both notebookId and workspaceId have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description does not add parameter-specific detail, but none is necessary because the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove the attached environment from a notebook.' It also clarifies the mechanism by stating that it deletes the environment binding from definition metadata, distinguishing it from notebook_delete and notebook_attach_environment.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation itself: use this when you want to detach an environment from a notebook. However, the description does not explicitly name alternatives like notebook_attach_environment, nor does it state when not to use the tool, leaving the routing largely to inference.

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