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

Annotations declare a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) that is non-destructive, and the description earns credit by spelling out what survives the unlink — account, photos, credits — which is the main behavioral uncertainty for this tool. It does not explain what happens to the conversation's access afterwards, what an invalid connection_key returns, or that repeated calls are not idempotent (idempotentHint=false), so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the action and its scope are front-loaded and the reassurance clause follows immediately where it is most needed.

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 one-parameter link-teardown tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is severed and what is preserved. Minor gaps remain around post-disconnect state and error behavior, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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 100% and the single parameter is documented in-schema, including its origin ('returned by connect_account') and a secrecy rule. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb ('Unlinks') and names both sides of the relationship ('this conversation' and 'the user's TrueLook account'), which immediately distinguishes it from account-level operations and from the connect_account sibling. An agent can identify the exact effect without opening the schema.

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 only implied: the second sentence ('Their account, photos and credits stay') signals this is the non-destructive way to end a link, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative. An agent must infer the routing from context.

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