teamleader_remove_project_deal

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly indicates an unlink rather than a delete, but it does not disclose potential side effects, idempotency, prerequisites, or permission requirements. This is minimally transparent rather than informative.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary context. Every word contributes to conveying the operation.

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 simple two-parameter operation with fully documented schema fields, the core invocation information is present. However, with no annotations and no behavioral context about side effects or reversibility, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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%: both 'id' and 'deal_id' already have clear descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it remains at the baseline of 3.

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 ('Unlink') with a concrete object ('a deal') and target ('from a project'), clearly stating the operation. It distinguishes itself from the sibling teamleader_add_project_deal and other project-related mutation tools.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a deal should no longer be linked to a project. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention the inverse operation add_project_deal or any alternative.

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