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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only says the link is removed. It does not disclose whether the removal is permanent, whether the related knowledge entries are affected, what happens if the linkId does not exist, or what response to expect.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the verb 'Remove.' It is appropriately sized for the tool's low complexity.

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 is simple and all three required parameters are documented, so an agent can likely invoke it. However, with no output schema or annotations, a bit more behavioral context—such as whether the knowledge entries themselves are preserved—would make the description complete.

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 schema already explains linkId, projectId, and knowledgeId. The description adds little beyond the phrase 'between two knowledge entries,' which is a minor conceptual aid but not additional parameter-level detail.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('a link between two knowledge entries'), clearly stating the tool's function. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling link_knowledge, but the inverse relationship makes the 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites are mentioned, and no exclusions are stated. The description only restates the operation; it does not mention that link_knowledge is the tool for creating links or when unlinking should be avoided.

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