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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the key side-effect boundary: the company item is kept and other linked workspaces keep their link. It also states the required permission 'company_context:write,' which is actionable authorization context.

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 short and front-loads purpose, trigger, and side effects. The phrase 'turns in the workspace then use no company profile' is slightly awkward, which keeps it from being perfectly concise.

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 one-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, what is preserved, the alternative tool, and required permission. Nothing essential for selection or invocation is missing.

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%, and the single workspace_id parameter is already documented as a UUID from list_workspaces. The description does not add parameter-specific syntax or constraints, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb, 'unlink,' and resource, 'workspace's company,' and distinguishes it from deleting the company by noting that the company item is kept. The client-context wording and the sibling alternative make it easy to separate from link_company_to_workspace and delete_company.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it when the user says a workspace is no longer for that client.' It also names the alternative for a different intent: 'to remove the company itself, use delete_company.'

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