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

The annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description still adds useful context by specifying that specified links are removed, clarifying that the note itself is not deleted.

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 the operation and scope front-loaded. There is no filler, and every phrase contributes to identifying the action and what it removes.

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?

The tool has rich annotations and an output schema, and the description sufficiently explains the core mutation: removing specified relationship links from a note. It is only missing minor operational context such as permissions or partial-failure behavior, which are not essential for 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter meanings are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax, constraints, or behavior beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 specific verb ('Detach') and resource ('a note') plus explicit target entity types ('companies, people, or opportunities'). It also clarifies 'Removes specified links,' distinguishing this relationship removal from deleting or updating the note 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?

It states what the tool does but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives such as attach-note-to-entities-tool or delete-note-tool. The appropriate use case is only implied by the action itself.

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