Unlink Translation

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the action but does not explain effects on the translation content (whether it remains as standalone content), permission requirements, or reversibility. The example is helpful but insufficient for a 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 very concise with two sentences: one defining the action and one providing an example. Every word is purposeful, no fluff, and the most important information is 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?

Given the simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage. However, it could be more complete by mentioning what happens to the unlinked translation item, as this is a common source of confusion.

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?

Although schema descriptions provide 100% coverage, the tool description adds value by showing an example with concrete values, clarifying how the parameters (path and language) are used together. This goes beyond the schema's individual definitions.

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 clearly states the verb 'removes' and the resource 'translation link', specifying the scope between a content item and one of its translations by language code. It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'plone_link_translation' which performs the opposite action.

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 provides an example but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'plone_link_translation'. No mention of when not to use it or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context.

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