Detach volume

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the safety burden and does so well: it labels the operation 'Destructive' and warns that 'forceDetach: true risks data corruption if the volume is mid-write.' It also states the authorization requirement. It does not explain all side effects or post-detach state, but the critical behavioral risks are disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: the action, the risk, the destructiveness, and the authorization constraint each get a short sentence. The supporting docs link is the only extra element and is relevant. No filler or repetition.

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 description is adequate for a safety-critical tool because it highlights the destructive nature and authorization bar, and it links to official docs. However, there is no output schema, no annotations, and three of four parameters are not semantically explained, so the overall context is incomplete for a fully correct invocation.

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 should explain the four parameters. It only adds meaning for forceDetach, warning about the data-corruption risk. name, hostId, and attachmentID are left unexplained, leaving the agent without enough semantic guidance for the other three parameters.

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+resource: 'Detach a volume.' This clearly identifies the operation and, through the 'detach' action, distinguishes it from sibling tools like volume_attach and volume_delete. However, it does not explicitly position itself among those siblings, so it stops just short of a fully differentiating statement.

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 an explicit authorization gate: 'Do not call this unless the user has explicitly authorized it in this conversation — never proactively, speculatively, or as a side effect of another task.' This tells the agent when not to invoke the tool. It does not, however, discuss when to prefer this over related volume operations, missing a small piece of routing guidance.

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