Projects Detach Asset

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, destructive operation. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context—it doesn't explain whether the asset itself is deleted or just the association, nor does it mention any side effects or permissions. With annotations present, the description's failure to add any context is a notable gap.

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, concise sentence that directly states the action. It avoids verbosity, but it also sacrifices informative detail. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, scoring a 4.

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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It lacks usage guidelines and does not elaborate on the effect of detaching. Given the presence of annotations and schema, it is minimally complete but not thorough.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters ('Project ID (UUID)' and 'Asset ID (UUID)'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, but per the rubric, the high schema coverage warrants a baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb 'detach' with a clear resource ('asset from a project'), unequivocally stating the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like projects_attach-asset by being the inverse operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that projects_attach-asset is the corresponding tool for adding assets, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The usage is only implied by the verb.

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