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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things annotations cannot: that the underlying schedule and compliance item are preserved, and that 'compliance:write' scope is required. That is real value beyond the structured fields.

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 the most surprising fact (nothing is destroyed), with no filler.

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 tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the semantics, the side-effect guarantee and the auth scope needed to call it correctly. The only minor gap is not explaining what the resulting link state or response looks like, which is small given there is no output 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 100% and the single parameter 'id' already documents itself as a Link ID to resolve via list_compliance_pm_schedules. The description adds no syntax or resolution detail beyond the schema, 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 gives a specific verb ('Unlink') and both resources ('a PM schedule from a compliance item'), and it immediately corrects the misleading 'delete' in the tool name by stating the schedule and item both survive. An agent can distinguish this from the true destructive siblings.

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?

It clarifies the effect of use ('The schedule and the item both stay'), which tells an agent this is a non-destructive detach rather than a removal, and it preconditions with the required scope. It does not name an alternative tool for actually deleting a link vs. deleting the entities, but the operational context is clear.

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