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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is already carried. The description adds real value by bounding that destruction: it clarifies that only the template link is severed and the platform magnet survives, which the annotations cannot express.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the destructive-scope caveat and the param. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a single-param mutation with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies the param identity and the destruction boundary — enough for correct invocation, though no error or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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% and the single param is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does, naming the param and identifying it as a template uuid, matching the schema's uuid format and required status, though it gives no further format or lookup guidance.

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+resource: 'Remove a template's magnet link,' and adds a sharp scoping clause that distinguishes detaching from deleting. It does not name the inverse sibling link_collectible_to_template, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies when this is used — when you want to detach a magnet without destroying the platform magnet — but never explicitly says when to prefer it over link_collectible_to_template, delete_template, or other template operations. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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