remove_water_body_from_zone

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds value by disclosing the return shape (removed bool, note string), which hints that removal can fail partially and surfaces a diagnostic note, but it does not explain persistence or permissions implications of the unlink.

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 compact clauses with no filler; the core action is front-loaded before the return contract. Both sentences earn their 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully supplies the return payload, and annotations cover the safety semantics. Both parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the only minor gap is the absence of precondition/failure detail for an operation whose 'note' field implies error states exist.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters with precise descriptions. The description only restates that an existing water body and zone are involved, adding no syntax, format, or behavioral detail beyond what the schema provides.

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/remove) applied to two named resources (water body actor, AWaterZone) and explicitly frames itself as the inverse of add_water_body_to_zone, letting an agent distinguish it from that sibling immediately.

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 phrase 'inverse of add_water_body_to_zone' clearly signals when this tool is the right choice (undoing an existing link), giving real routing context. However, it states no explicit exclusion or precondition beyond that relational cue, so it falls short of the full when/when-not rubric.

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