unlink_records

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the core action ('Remove a link') without disclosing side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or behavior for non-existent links. As a mutation tool, more transparency is 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that states the action, target, and scope without unnecessary words. It front-loads the verb and resource.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover usage context, return behavior, and edge cases. It lacks any mention of when to use, what happens after unlinking, or whether the operation is idempotent. The presence of sibling tools like link_records further emphasizes the need for distinguishing guidance.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for 3 of 4 parameters (75% coverage). The description adds context that the operation works via a relational (Links) field and supports multiple related records, which aids understanding of link_field_id and related_record_ids. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the undocumented table_id.

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 the specific verb 'Remove' and explicitly names the resource ('a link between a record and one or more related records through a relational (Links) field'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like link_records (which adds links) and delete_records (which removes records).

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 explicit usage guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The inverse operation (link_records) is a sibling tool, but the description doesn't tell the agent when to choose unlink_records over link_records or other mutations. The intended use case is implied by the verb but not articulated.

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