unlink_launch_from_release

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral transparency by stating that only the link is removed and the launch itself remains unaffected, which prevents an agent from assuming the launch is deleted.

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 two short sentences with no filler or redundant phrasing. The core action is front-loaded and the clarifying caveat about the launch being unaffected is valuable and concise.

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 unlink operation, the description covers the action, the object being modified, and the critical non-effect on the launch itself. The annotations and schema carry the remaining safety and input details, so nothing essential appears to be 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?

The input schema already fully documents both releaseId and launchId with clear descriptions, so the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the specific action: removing an automated launch from a release. It also clarifies a key distinction by noting that the launch itself is not affected, which helps separate this from destructive launch deletion or removal 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 provides clear context about the operation's effect, removing the association while preserving the launch. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as link_launches_to_release, but the inverse relationship is strongly implied by the phrasing and sibling tool list.

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