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

Beyond annotations, description clarifies side effects (removes placement only), non-effects (retains ticket, doesn't delete documents), and potential conflict conditions. Consistent with idempotentHint and destructiveHint.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with additional guidance in a compact note. No filler; every word adds value.

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?

Sufficient for an agent to execute correctly: prerequisite, conflict warning, and explicit non-destructive scope. Output schema exists but not needed for a simple unlink operation.

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?

Description adds meaning to expected_binding_id by referencing project_get, but project_id and ticket_id are only implicitly understood from the tool name. Schema has no parameter descriptions, so coverage is partial.

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?

Clear verb 'Remove' with specific object 'one exact project-feature placement' and explicit retention of the ticket. Distinguishes from sibling link_feature and clarifies non-deletion.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisite (read binding_id from project_get first) and notes stale bindings/document references conflict. Could be stronger on when to use vs alternatives, but the 'does not delete tickets or documents' implies boundaries.

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