unlink_var_model

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

The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral trait, 'Idempotent', which tells the agent that repeated calls are safe and have the same effect. However, with no annotations at all, more context—such as whether unlinking is reversible or what happens if no link exists—would be needed for full transparency.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The '#569' reference is noise that doesn't help an agent invoke the tool, but the overall structure is otherwise excellent.

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 single-parameter unlink operation, the description covers the basic action and includes an important idempotency caveat. It is minimally viable, but it leaves 'VAR link' undefined and offers no usage guidance or parameter clarification, so an agent is left to infer some context.

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?

The schema has a single required parameter, model_hash, with no description beyond its title. The tool description does not clarify what this hash represents, what format it should take, or how it relates to the MMM being unlinked, so it fails to compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Remove', with a concrete resource, 'an MMM's VAR link', which makes the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also inherently contrasts with the sibling tool link_var_model, so an agent can tell them apart without further investigation.

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 given about when to use this tool versus link_var_model or any other sibling. Although the operation is implied by the name, the description never states the conditions under which unlinking is appropriate or what prerequisites must exist.

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