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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the destructive scope: 'Deletes the join row only. The Storage object stays (and remains on any other attachments).' This directly prevents the common misinterpretation that unlinking deletes the underlying file, which is exactly the kind of behavioral transparency agents need.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, then side-effect, then invocation constraint, then alias note. Every sentence adds distinct value with no filler or repetition.

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 simple four-parameter tool with full schema parameter descriptions and an output schema, the description covers the non-obvious runtime requirements and side effects. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly, including how to handle the deprecated alias.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a clear description. The description adds valuable cross-parameter semantics by stating that at least one of work_id or project_id must be provided and that both can be used together via 'and/or.' This constraint is not encoded in the schema's required list, so the description meaningfully supplements 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Unlink a Storage object from a work item and/or project.' It makes the scope immediately clear and distinguishes the operation from broader deletion or attachment tools. The clarification that it only removes the join row removes ambiguity about whether the storage object itself is affected.

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 gives a concrete invocation requirement: 'Pass at least one of work_id / project_id.' It also explicitly identifies drive_unlink as a deprecated alias, steering agents to this tool instead. It does not enumerate exclusions or alternative tools for related operations, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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