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

Goes beyond annotations by detailing the cascading edit behavior ('stops cascading descriptive-field edits to its former siblings and stops receiving theirs'), the inert group when one remains, and the 404 semantics. The `destructiveHint: true` is clarified as non-deleting, resolving any potential confusion.

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?

The description is information-dense with each sentence adding a distinct useful fact: purpose, non-destructive effect, group behavior, lack of re-join, and error handling. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids 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?

Covers all aspects needed to call correctly: the effect on data, the behavior of remaining siblings, the impossibility of re-joining (which references the alternative), the exact return value `{ unlinked: true }`, and the 404 error conditions. No relevant information is missing.

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?

The schema already documents `id` as the Mongo `_id` of an owned character. The description adds context about ownership and effects on the linkGroup but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema states. With 100% schema coverage, 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?

The description states a precise action ('remove one character from its linked-sheet group by clearing its `linkGroup`') and distinguishes it from deletion ('nothing is deleted'). It also references the sibling `vault_spawn_linked_character`, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use and what happens instead: 'There is no re-join: a later vault_spawn_linked_character from this sheet mints a NEW group.' Also clarifies the idempotent behavior and 404 responses for repeated unlinks, giving clear guidance on expected usage.

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