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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: it clarifies that only the target article is affected, sibling articles remain linked to each other, and nothing is deleted — an important nuance alongside destructiveHint=true. It also confirms idempotency with the exact return flag (alreadyUnlinked: true), matching the idempotentHint annotation but enriching it with observable behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the most decision-relevant details (scope of change and usage timing). No filler or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, scope, idempotency, and usage guidance. The one gap is the undocumented id parameter, but its meaning is inferable from the tool name and schema.

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 coverage is 50%: workspaceId is documented in the schema, but id has no description. The tool description does not explain either parameter or its format, so it adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (unlink) and resource (article from its translation cluster), making the opposite of the sibling link_translation immediately clear without naming it. An agent can distinguish this from related tools at a glance.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition: 'Use it before changing an article's language to one the cluster already covers.' It does not name the alternative tool (link_translation) or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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