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

Annotations provide no hints (all false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that `data` must be JSON with to_entity_id/to_entity_type and that bulk execution via entity_ids is supported. However, it does not describe side effects, what happens if a link doesn't exist, or any error behavior. It adds some value beyond the schema but remains sparse for a mutation-like tool.

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?

The description is moderately concise but somewhat tangled. It mixes multiple actions in one sentence, then clarifies with 'Flattened action: unlink'. The bulk support note is useful. It is not overly long, but could be structured better to focus on the unlink behavior. Overall, it is acceptable but not a model of clarity.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and zero annotation support, the description is largely incomplete. It fails to clarify the meaning of core parameters like entity_id and entity_type, does not explain the return value or error cases, and only vaguely defines behavior. For a tool with this complexity, the description is inadequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanations. It only explains `data` (JSON with target entity info) and `entity_ids` (for bulk), but leaves other parameters (entity_id, entity_type, page, limit, filter, account) unexplained. The required `entity_type` gets no semantic clarification beyond the enum. This is insufficient for an 8-parameter tool.

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 clearly indicates the tool is about entity links and specifically for 'unlink' via the 'Flattened action: unlink' note. It uses a specific verb (unlink) and resource (entities), distinguishing it from sibling tools kommo_links_link and kommo_links_list. However, the inclusion of 'action: list | link | unlink' could be confusing, slightly reducing clarity.

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 description implies this tool is for unlinking entities by mentioning 'Flattened action: unlink', but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. the link or list tools. No alternative tools are named, only the general action list. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, and there is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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