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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the exact nature of the operation ('Clear the link' rather than delete the artifact), the idempotence condition ('when already unlinked'), and the required permissions. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the operation, and the second covers idempotence and permissions. Every sentence earns its place and the description is appropriately front-loaded.

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 description covers the core operation, idempotence, and required permissions, which is adequate for a simple unlink action. However, with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, it leaves some gaps around artifact types and optional parameters. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It helps infer that job_id refers to a Job and artifact_id/artifact_type refer to an artifact, but it does not explain request_id, idempotency_key, or the meaning of artifact_type enum values. Core params are partially inferable, but a significant share of parameter semantics is left to the schema with no descriptions.

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 clear action ('Clear the link'), the resource ('an artifact'), and the target ('a Job'). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling yardstick_jobs_attach_artifact because it describes the inverse operation, even without naming it explicitly.

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 preconditions ('Requires jobs:write and the artifact's own write scope') and notes idempotence when already unlinked, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No explicit usage-context or alternative routing is provided.

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