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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the HTTP method is PUT rather than DELETE, and it inherits a 404-handling pattern from the sibling — both useful for an agent anticipating error behavior.

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 zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the method/error nuance follows. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema, but annotations cover the safety profile, and the description adds the method and error-handling pattern. What remains thin is per-parameter meaning, which leaves the definition slightly incomplete for a 2-required-param mutation tool.

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 only 50% (activityId is documented as "Numeric id", gearUUID has nothing), and the description never mentions either parameter, so it does not compensate for the gap. Names are self-explanatory, keeping this at the minimum-viable baseline rather than below it.

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 ("Unlinks") plus the exact resource boundary ("a piece of gear from an activity"), which is unambiguous and clearly the inverse of the sibling `add_gear_to_activity`. An agent can distinguish it from delete_gear or set_gear_activity_defaults without opening the 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?

Usage is implied by naming the counterpart operation (`addGearToActivity`), so the agent can infer this is the removal path. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus alternatives like `delete_gear`, nor any prerequisite conditions.

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