e2e_detach_security_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Detach', without disclosing permission requirements, reversibility, side effects (e.g., whether the last security group can be removed), or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It states the action and its object directly, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits prerequisites, side effects, error behavior, and any indication of the operation's scope or safety profile, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.

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 100%, so the schema already documents vm_id, security_group_id, location, and project_id. The description adds no parameter syntax, format, or default information beyond the schema baseline, which is appropriate for a baseline 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 states a specific verb (Detach) and resource (security group) against a compute node, so the operation is immediately identifiable. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling e2e_attach_security_group or e2e_detach_volume, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention the attach counterpart or conditions under which detaching is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer everything beyond the bare purpose.

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