ad_unlink_gpo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says only '[WRITE]', omitting whether unlinking is reversible, what happens to the GPO itself (link removed, object retained), whether a confirmation_token is required, and what dry_run previews. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial 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?

It is short and front-loads the domain and operation tags, with zero filler. However, the extreme terseness and the switch to Portuguese against an English tool name leave it under-specified rather than genuinely 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but the mutation workflow (dry_run preview → confirmation_token commit), permission requirements, and parameter meanings are all absent. For a five-parameter write tool with no annotations, this is not enough to call it safely.

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 0% across five parameters, and the description supplies no meaning for gpo_identity, target_dn, dry_run, confirmation_token, or correlation_id. Only the implied 'unlink' semantics hint that gpo_identity and target_dn pair together; the safety-related parameters remain entirely undocumented.

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 Portuguese phrase 'Remover vinculo de GPO' states a specific verb (remove link) and resource (GPO), and the [WRITE] tag flags the operation class. It is distinguishable from siblings like ad_link_gpo and ad_get_gpo_links, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., permissions on the target container), and no explanation of how this differs from ad_update_gpo or ad_get_gpo_links. The presence of dry_run and confirmation_token parameters implies a workflow the description never mentions.

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