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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces removal ("Removes specified links") but does not clarify the key behavioral question for a destructive tool: that only the association is severed while the task and the linked records survive, nor what happens if some IDs are invalid.

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 destructive action front-loaded. "Removes specified links" partially restates "Detach", so it is not perfectly economical, but nothing is buried or padded.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations are rich, so return values and safety need no explanation here. What is missing is the scope boundary: whether this tool also deletes the task or the detached records, which is the main ambiguity an agent faces on a destructive detach 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description slightly exceeds that by restating the entity-type mapping at the top level (companies, people, opportunities, users-to-unassign), which helps an agent match intent like "unassign a user" to the assignee_ids parameter during selection.

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 (detach) and resource (task relationships) plus the four relationship types affected, which is enough to place it against attach-task-to-entities-tool and detach-note-from-entities-tool. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for removing links rather than deleting the task. There is no statement of prerequisites, no guidance on when to prefer delete-task-tool or update-task-tool instead, and no note on needing at least one of the optional ID arrays.

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