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

Annotations declare destructive and idempotent. Description adds that only the owner's own link is removed (scope limitation) and that selection is cleared if necessary (side effect). This is valuable context beyond annotations, though it doesn't cover permissions or error cases.

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?

One short sentence with two clauses, no filler. Front-loaded with the main action. It is arguably too terse, but conciseness is good.

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 single-param destructive tool with no output schema and annotations covering destructive/idempotent, the description gives key scope and side-effect info. However, it leaves ambiguous what 'próprio dono' means in a multi-user context and provides no usage routing, so it is only minimally adequate.

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%; cnpj is fully described with format and validation. Description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (remove) and resource (vínculo do próprio dono), and constrains scope with 'somente'. It distinguishes from siblings that add or search for companies, but the phrase 'vínculo do próprio dono' is slightly ambiguous (link of the owner vs company itself).

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?

No explicit when-to-use, preconditions, or alternatives. Only implicit context from 'se necessário' for clearing selection. An agent must infer that this is for unlinking the current owner's company.

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