Debugger: Detach

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is mutating and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is a no-op if not attached and the running channel keeps executing. It also mentions the socket release, making side effects clear.

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, direct, and free of filler. It packs the core action, a technical detail, idempotency, and the effect on the running channel into two clear sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description provides enough behavioral context for a developer to understand the tool's effect, including the no-op case and that execution continues. Combined with the sibling tool list, it is sufficiently complete for a detach operation.

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?

The only parameter, device, is fully described in the schema with optionality, matching requirements, and fallback behavior. The tool description adds no extra parameter detail, and with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: closing the debug session for a device, and adds a concrete detail about releasing the 808 control socket. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like debugger_attach, debugger_pause, and debugger_status.

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 implies when to use this tool—when you want to end a debug session—and the idempotent/no-op behavior makes it safe to call even if not attached. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as debugger_attach or debugger_disconnect, so the guidance is mostly implicit.

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