remove_governance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does but does not disclose side effects, whether this is destructive, whether it affects related entities, error conditions, or what the return value looks like. Output schema exists but the description doesn't explain behavioral implications of detaching governance.

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 efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it borders on under-specification rather than achieving economy through completeness.

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?

This is a mutation tool (detaching governance) with no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and 0% schema coverage. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description does not explain detach semantics, reversibility, or what happens to the entity afterward. For a two-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage, significantly more should be provided.

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% and the parameters (ref, governance_ref) have no descriptions or enums, so the description must compensate. However, the description only identifies governance_ref as the thing being detached and ref as the entity, which it does implicitly but not explicitly. The parameter semantics are not expanded—no clarification of what format ref and governance_ref take.

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 'Detach a governance ref from an entity' uses a specific verb (detach) and clearly identifies the resource (governance ref) and target (entity). It is somewhat terse but clearly distinguishes from sibling 'add_governance' which attaches. It could be clearer about what 'governance ref' means, but it communicates the core action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., the ref must currently be attached), no mention of the inverse operation add_governance, and no conditions under which detaching might fail or be inappropriate. Zero usage context provided.

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