uncite

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the citation may be deleted when orphaned, and the narrative explains the downstream consequence of orphan accumulation. It does not address reversibility (undo_transaction) or return format, so not a 5.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded and carries the core action. The second paragraph is editorializing ("still looking like evidence of something") and could be tightened, though the rationale for avoiding orphans does have some instructional value.

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 destructive mutation with full annotation coverage and a fully described schema, the description supplies purpose, triggers, and the orphan-deletion consequence. It omits return information and reversibility, but with no output schema present the remaining gap is minor.

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 coverage is 100% and all four parameters are self-documented, including delete_if_orphan's warning to leave it True. The description's orphan discussion overlaps conceptually with that parameter but adds no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Detach a citation from an object") and immediately adds the consequential modifier "deleting it if it is left orphaned." An agent can distinguish this from siblings like cite_object, update_citation, and detach_object without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use conditions: "Use this when a citation was attached to the wrong fact, or when a superseded bucket citation is replaced by the real record." There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. detach_object vs. uncite), so it stops short of a 5.

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