invariance_capture_unlink

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

The description discloses the behavioral effect: deleting a specific evidence link or clearing run_id. It also adds domain context ('Captures are standalone evidence; they don't need an execution upfront'), which helps explain the legacy behavior. Annotations already indicate mutation, and the description aligns with them without contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and zero filler. The mode distinction is stated before the supporting domain context, making the important operational detail immediately visible.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers both invocation modes, the meaning of link_id, and the legacy fallback. The domain note about captures being standalone evidence adds enough context for correct use without requiring extra documentation.

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 100%, and the schema already documents both id and link_id, including the omit-to-clear-run_id behavior. The description restates this information rather than adding substantial new meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Detach') and resource ('capture link'), and immediately clarifies the two operating modes (with link_id vs legacy run_id clearing). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like invariance_capture_link and invariance_capture_update without needing to inspect schemas.

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 clear context for when to use each mode: pass link_id to detach a specific evidence link, omit it to clear the capture's run_id in the legacy path. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the mode distinction is actionable enough for an agent to select the right behavior.

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