outliner-object_unlink

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the force requirement for the final collection case but fails to mention whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or what happens to the object's visibility/ownership after unlinking. As a mutation tool, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource ('Unlink an object from a collection'), with a clear conditional caveat. Zero wasted words.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description carries full burden for behavioral context. It discloses the force condition but omits key details: error behavior (e.g., what if object is not in collection?), side effects (is it reversible?), and whether unlinking removes visibility or just membership. The tool appears to be a mutation, yet no mention of permissions or impact on the object's other collection links.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It adds context for 'force' (required if final collection) but gives no additional meaning for 'object' and 'collection' beyond their generic titles. The schema's force description ('Allow object to have no collection') is vague compared to the tool description's 'final collection' condition, but the ambiguity remains.

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 clearly states the action: 'Unlink an object from a collection'. It specifies the resource (object) and operation (unlink from collection), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like outliner-parent_clear (removes parenting) and outliner-visibility_set (visibility toggles).

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 provides a key usage condition: 'force is required if it is the final collection', telling the agent when the force flag is needed. However, it does not mention when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., moving to another collection, clearing parent) or any prerequisites like the object needing to be a member of the collection.

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