profiles_link_v1_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the HTTP method (DELETE) and auth requirements, but does not explain consequences of unlinking (e.g., irreversibility, effect on linked services, error behavior), leaving the agent uncertain about side effects.

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 concise, front-loaded with the endpoint and purpose, and includes essential invocation info (required header, auth, and guide pointer) in a compact form. It is well-structured but could be slightly improved by clarifying the resource being unlinked.

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?

The description provides auth requirements and a pointer to a guide, which aids invocation, but lacks conceptual context (what 'unlink profile' means, return values, error cases). Given the schema covers parameters and there is no output schema, the description is moderately complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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% (all 5 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description repeats the required header and oauth token, but the schema already provides these details; it adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers. The reference to the guide resource is extra, but not parameter-specific.

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 profile' with the HTTP method DELETE and endpoint path. It is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling 'profiles_link_v1_put' (which presumably links), though it could be more explicit about what a 'profile' refers to in context.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives, only stating required headers and OAuth token. It does not mention scenarios where this should be used over other profile-related tools, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites beyond authentication.

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