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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the identity triple that must match the original link, and the Editor role authorization requirement. It leaves the no-op/error behavior on a missing match unstated, which is the main residual gap.

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, front-loaded with the action and the identifying triple, then the permission requirement. Nothing is redundant 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?

For a destructive, idempotent mutation with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the essential semantics: what identity is required to target the right link and who is allowed to call it. The undocumented campaignId and the result when no matching link exists are the remaining holes.

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 only 25%, so the description must carry weight, and it does clarify that sourceId/targetId/type must be the exact triple previously set. However, campaignId is never mentioned in either the schema or the description, leaving one of four required parameters wholly unexplained.

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 and resource ('Removes a link') and defines the resource precisely as the inverse of set_relationship ('same source, target and type'), which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling without opening either schema.

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?

The inverse-of-set_relationship framing tells the agent exactly when this applies, and the Editor role requirement is an explicit precondition. It stops short of saying what happens when the link does not exist or naming alternatives, so it is strong but not complete.

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