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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond them: only links are removed, items and memories are preserved, and the return value is a count of removed links. It does not cover auth or error behavior, but the added semantics are substantive.

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 core action and scope, then preservation semantics, then return value. 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?

For a two-parameter mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, preservation behavior, inverse operation, and return value. Nothing critical for correct 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%, so the schema fully documents parentKey and childKeys. The description implies multiple children from one parent but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema; baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Unlink) and resource (items from one parent in a bundle), scopes it to several items in one call, and distinguishes it from node deletion by noting only links are removed. The inverse relationship to muninn_bundle_nodes_create further disambiguates it from siblings.

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?

Clearly indicates the operation's context: remove multiple child links from a parent without deleting the items or memories. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as muninn_bundle_node_delete or state when-not to use it beyond the implied preservation semantics.

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