unassign_instrument_from_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return (confirmation or error if mapping didn't exist), but does not mention side effects, reversibility, permissions, or impact on existing data.

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 three tightly scoped sections (action, args, returns) with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the purpose and each sentence carries information.

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 2-parameter mutation, the description covers the operation, parameters, and expected outcome. It lacks a suggestion to verify existing mappings via sibling tools, but is otherwise complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by defining 'Internal form name' for instrument and 'Unique event name' with an example, adding meaning far beyond the schema's bare property names.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('instrument from an event'), and clarifies the longitudinal project context, distinguishing it from assign_instrument_to_event.

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 context is clear (removing an existing mapping), but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Sibling tools like get_instrument_event_mappings are not mentioned, nor is any prerequisite checking.

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