doc_disconnect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action is to 'disconnect/unlink' and remove from knowledge base, implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects on the document or agent, or what the response looks like (e.g., success/failure).

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and effect. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary details, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral context (e.g., reversibility, permissions), response format, and usage guidelines, leaving gaps for an AI agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (studio, documentId, pickaxeId) with their types and descriptions. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., documentId and pickaxeId must correspond to an existing link).

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 ('disconnect/unlink'), the resource ('a document from a Pickaxe agent'), and the effect ('removing it from the agent's knowledge base'). It distinguishes from siblings like doc_connect (linking) and doc_delete (deleting the document entirely).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the document must be linked first), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like doc_delete (which might remove the document entirely versus just unlinking).

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