Unlink entities

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no context about consequences (e.g., whether links are permanently removed, if it can be undone, or if it affects other entities). It does not contradict annotations, but it also adds minimal value beyond the title.

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 a single terse sentence with no fluff, which is concise. However, it is under-specified for a complex operation, but conciseness itself is good.

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?

With no output schema, complex nested 'links' parameter, and a destructive hint, the description is insufficient. It provides a basic action but fails to explain what constitutes a valid 'link', what 'parent' means, or return behavior. This is a clear gap for a destructive operation.

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%, and the description provides zero information about the parameters. The schema itself has 3 required params (entity_type, entity_id, links) with unclear semantics, and the description does not clarify what 'parent' refers to or the structure of 'links'. The agent must guess.

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 'Unlink entities from a parent' clearly states the action (unlink) and the resource (entities from a parent). It distinguishes from sibling kommo_links_link by being the inverse operation, though 'entities' and 'parent' are somewhat generic without schema context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with kommo_links_link or kommo_links_list. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name.

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