Unlink a directory

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds clarity by stating that the .env file is untouchedpis, which is important behavioral context. As an idempotent operation, the description could mention that it is safe to run even if no link file exists, but this is implied.

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?

Two sentences convey the purpose, side effect, and equivalence to a CLI command with no fluff. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and key side effect.

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 only one parameter, idempotent annotation, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It could mention what happens if the link file doesn't exist, but the idempotentHint covers that implicitly. The external command equivalence adds operational context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes project_dir thoroughly. The description doesn't add extra parameter syntax, but it reinforces that the directory is where both the link file and .env reside. Since there is only one parameter and it is well documented, the minimal description contribution is acceptable.

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 '.oneguard link file', and specifies what is not affected ('The .env file on disk is left untouched'). It is distinguished from sibling operations like oneguard_env_sync and oneguard_env_push by its focus on the link file removal.

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 implies the tool is used to unlink a directory from environment synchronization, and explicitly mentions the equivalent CLI command. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus oneguard_env_sync or oneguard_env_status, nor does it mention any prerequisites (like an existing link file) or when not to use it.

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