tldraw_unbind_arrow

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

The description states the core action (remove binding) but lacks details on side effects: does the arrow remain, is the binding permanently removed, what happens if the arrow has no binding? Without annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence of 13 words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. While concise, it could be slightly more structured with usage notes, but it avoids verbosity.

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 simple unbind operation, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters. However, it omits the expected outcome (e.g., the arrow becomes a line without binding) and does not mention error conditions or return value. It is minimally adequate.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description rephrases the terminal parameter as 'start or end terminal,' which adds minimal new meaning beyond the enum. It does not provide extra constraints or examples.

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 uses a specific verb 'Remove' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the binding from an arrow's start or end terminal.' It precisely distinguishes this tool from its sibling tldraw_bind_arrow, which performs the opposite operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when an arrow's binding should be removed to allow free movement, or prerequisites like ensuring the arrow currently has a binding. No explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context is given.

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