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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine scope beyond that: the removal is unconditional across every relation type and additionally strips the target Jam's backlink, which tells the agent exactly what state is destroyed.

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, zero filler, with the destructive scope front-loaded. Nothing here repeats the name or title redundantly.

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?

For a destructive relation-clearing tool with no output schema, the description covers the important part — that all relation types and backlinks are removed — and annotations supply the safety hints. It stops short of noting error behavior when no relation exists or pointing at markRelated as the undo-side counterpart.

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 jamId, targetJamId, intent, and llm_model are already documented, including that identifiers may be UUIDs or jam.dev URLs. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which meets the baseline when the schema carries the full burden.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: remove every relation from one Jam to another, and states the scope is type-agnostic. It does not name the sibling markRelated, so the agent must infer the inverse operation from the name alone.

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 by the verb 'Remove' — the agent can conclude this is the tool for severing a link, but the description never states when to prefer it over markRelated, nor does it say what happens if the two Jams were never related.

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