unlink_template_instances

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent, so the description only needs to add context. It does so by clarifying that entity data is preserved even though the template link is severed, which is a meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the structured annotations.

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?

One sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the behavioral qualifier ('keeping their current entity data') is included without redundancy.

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 straightforward mutation with clear annotations and a single parameter, the description is nearly sufficient. It could add a note about the irreversible nature of unlinking or what happens to overrides, but the combination of description and annotations covers the essential 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?

The schema describes entityIds only as UUIDs, so the description adds the important semantic that these identify template instances to be unlinked. For a single-parameter tool, this is enough compensation for the sparse schema coverage.

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 ('Unlink') and resource ('template instances') and adds the key outcome ('while keeping their current entity data'): this clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling template-override tools and from deleting instances. It does not restate the name, and the behavior is unambiguous.

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 usage scenario: detach template instances while preserving their data. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools such as revert_template_overrides or apply_template_overrides, and it provides no exclusions or alternative routing.

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