unlink_cels

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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and side-effects are largely the description's job. It discloses the key behavioral trait — 'Nothing is lost; the image is copied rather than moved' — which reassures the agent this mutation is non-destructive, and notes the return (link groups). Could say more about scope/permissions but adds real value beyond annotations.

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?

Front-loads the core action, uses a short clarifying sentence, then states the return — three tight blocks with no waste.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, non-destructiveness, and return value. The main shortfall is parameter explanation, but overall it gives an agent enough to call it correctly.

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 0% for all 3 required params. The description loosely references 'the layer's link groups' and 'each listed frame', hinting at layer and frames, but never clarifies filename, frame format, or the relationship between the three params. It does not adequately compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (unlink cels) and immediately names the sibling it reverses (`link_cels`) and the effect (each frame keeps what it shows and stops following others). An agent can select this without opening the schema.

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?

Frames the when: 'so they can differ again' and explicitly identifies itself as the reverse of link_cels, which routes the agent between the two. No explicit when-not condition, but the intent is clear.

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