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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it states exactly what is destroyed (the join row only) and what survives (the Storage object and its other attachments), which is the key risk information for a destructive-sounding call. It omits auth requirements and whether repeated calls are idempotent, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the critical 'what is not deleted' clarification, then the parameter constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

The tool is a simple 4-parameter unlink with a full schema and an output schema, and the description covers scope, side effects, and the argument constraint. What remains unsaid (behavior when both work_id and project_id are passed, response shape) is either minor or covered by the output schema.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine constraint not encoded in the schema: at least one of work_id or project_id must be supplied even though only file_id is required. That meaningfully improves correct invocation.

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 names a specific verb (unlink) and resource (Storage object) plus the two target types (work item / project). This is clearly distinguishable from storage_attach and work_remove_from_project, which operate on different relationships.

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 states the operational precondition 'Pass at least one of work_id / project_id' and clarifies scope: only the join row is removed. It does not name sibling alternatives or say when to use storage_attach versus this tool, but the context of use is clear.

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