text_unlinkFrames

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails to disclose anything beyond the bare action: no note on what unlinking does to the thread's text flow, whether it is reversible, what errors occur if the frame is not threaded, or permission requirements.

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 single sentence is efficient and front-loaded, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than genuine conciseness for a mutation tool with three parameters.

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 no-annotation mutation tool with 33% parameter coverage and no output schema, the description should explain threading semantics, error cases, and parameter meaning. It omits all of this, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 only 33% (only document_id is documented), so the description needed to compensate, but it mentions no parameters at all. pageIndex and frameIndex are left entirely to the schema's type/minimum constraints, with no explanation of what a frame index refers to or how frames are ordered.

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 (unlink) and resource (a text frame from its thread), which is concrete enough for an agent to grasp. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling text_linkFrames, though the inverse relationship is inferable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus text_linkFrames or any other tool, and no prerequisites or conditions are stated. The single sentence leaves usage entirely to inference.

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