teamleader_remove_project_quotation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (unlink) but doesn't disclose side effects, such as whether the quotation is deleted, whether the project is modified, reversibility, or permission requirements. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste. The action and both resources are stated clearly and front-loaded.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain what happens after unlinking, whether the operation is idempotent, or any error conditions. The schema covers parameters, but the behavioral context is missing.

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 both parameters ('id' as project ID, 'quotation_id' as quotation ID to unlink). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Unlink a quotation from a project' uses a specific verb ('unlink') and names both resources (quotation, project), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'teamleader_add_project_quotation' and other project-related tools. It is concise and unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tool.

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 the use case: when a quotation should no longer be associated with a project. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'teamleader_add_project_quotation' or 'teamleader_remove_project_deal', but the verb 'unlink' and resource names make the context reasonably clear. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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