detach_carrier_subscriber_host

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the write nature, the guard sequence (read-before, write kill-switch, read-after), the no-op edge case, the confirm=true requirement, and that it reports the just-detached prev_host_id. It even discloses the testing limitation, which is unusually transparent.

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 front-loaded with a one-line purpose and endpoint, then compactly groups behavioral guards and parameter notes. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the structure makes the guarded-write behavior easy to parse without unnecessary verbosity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and 3 parameters, the description covers the operation, edge cases, confirmation requirement, parameter semantics, and the read-after output hint. Since an output schema is present, return values do not need to be spelled out in the description. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: subscriber_id's provenance, confirm's must-be-true requirement, and key_label's optional API-key routing purpose. This adds meaning well beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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 operation with a specific verb ('Detach'), names the resource ('a subscriber's gateway host'), and includes the REST DELETE endpoint. This distinguishes it from attach_carrier_subscriber_host and other carrier-subscriber operations among the siblings.

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 gives clear context: it is a guarded write to detach a host, uses a subscriber_id sourced from list_carrier_subscribers, and behaves as a no-op when no host is attached. It does not explicitly name the attach counterpart as the alternative, but the purpose and endpoint make the detach scenario unambiguous.

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