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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description usefully clarifies that this is an unlink operation on a document's knowledge graph rather than entity deletion, but it does not say whether unlinking is reversible, whether the entity/document remain intact, or what permissions are needed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant text. Every word contributes to stating the action.

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 combination of 100% schema coverage and annotations covers the safety profile, and the description states the core action. However, for a destructive mutation with no output schema, it omits important context such as reversibility and the effect on the entity/document, leaving gaps.

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 all three parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, such as workspace_id fallback behavior, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Desvincula') and resource ('una entidad del knowledge graph de un documento'), so the action is clear. It does not explicitly name or distinguish from sibling tools such as associate_document_entity, so it falls short of 5.

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?

Only describes the action itself; there is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no explicit comparison to alternatives like associate_document_entity or delete_entity_relation. Usage is implied by the name but not explained.

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