Detach from DeepSeek Harness

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

Annotations already cover idempotency, non-readonly, and non-destructive intent. The description adds value beyond this by scoping the mutation precisely: exactly one relay attachment is affected, and the external Harness Host's state is preserved. This boundary disclosure is genuinely useful, though it stops short of describing the observable post-forget state.

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?

A single 12-word sentence with zero waste: the action verb leads, followed by scope and the key exclusion. Every word earns its place and the critical 'does not stop the host' clarification is included without bloat.

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 tool is low-complexity (one parameter, no output schema), so the description covers the core semantics adequately. However, domain terms like 'relay attachment' and 'Harness Host' are unexplained, and the lifecycle relationship to siblings (how attachments are created via start_service/open_service) is missing, which could leave an agent unsure of prerequisites.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the single serviceId parameter. It partially does by tying the operation to 'one relay attachment,' implying serviceId selects the attachment. However, it never explicitly states that serviceId identifies which relay attachment to forget, leaving some ambiguity given the tool name says 'service' while the description says 'attachment.'

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 ('forget') and resource ('one relay attachment') and adds a clarifying boundary ('without stopping or changing the external Harness Host'), which usefully corrects the misleading 'stop_service' name. It implicitly distinguishes itself from stop-like operations, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you want to detach/forget a single relay attachment while leaving the host untouched. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tools are named (e.g., what to use if you actually need to stop the host or cancel an ongoing run).

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