Goals Unlink Goal Account

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

The description adds 'This may create or update Monarch data,' which is a generic side-effect statement already implied by readOnlyHint=false. It does not disclose what actually changes (e.g., whether unlinking creates a goal event, whether it is reversible, or whether it affects other linked accounts). Given the annotations provide the same broad safety information, the description adds little meaningful 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 short at two sentences, so it is not verbose. However, the first sentence merely restates the title, and the second is a vague warning. While it is not bloated, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative, so it earns a middle score.

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 two required identifiers and no output schema, the description fails to explain the purpose of the goal_id/account_id pair, what 'unlink' means in context, or what the expected outcome looks like. The openWorldHint annotation further suggests unknown behaviors, yet the description does not clarify these. An agent would need to guess or rely on naming conventions to invoke the tool 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 50%, leaving required goal_id and account_id undocumented in the schema. The tool description does not compensate by explaining what these parameters mean or how they relate to the unlink operation. The only parameter clarity comes from the schema titles 'Goal Id' and 'Account Id' and the descriptions for fields and output_mode, not from the description text.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Unlink goal account.' It clearly identifies the action of removing an account from a goal. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like goals_link_goal_account_balance or goals_delete_goal, relying on the tool name rather than the description to differentiate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, consequences, or any scenario where another tool would be more appropriate. The only extra sentence about creating/updating Monarch data is a side-effect warning, not usage direction.

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