delete_subcontent

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description supports by stating the link is removed but the subcontent item is not deleted. The description adds clarity about the non-destructive nature to the subcontent itself, which is valuable beyond the annotations. No contradiction present.

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 concise and well-structured. The main statement is one sentence, followed by a clarifying sentence about what is not deleted. The parameter list is clear and aligned with the schema. No fluff or redundant information.

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?

The description is self-contained and sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly given the parameter documentation. It explains the operation's effect and non-effects clearly. There is no explicit mention of the return value or potential errors, but that is not critical for this straightforward operation and the annotations cover the destructive nature.

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?

All five parameters are documented in the description. workspace_id includes guidance to get available IDs from list_workspaces(). content_id, category_name, section_id, and subcontent_id are each explained with their role (parent collection, type, containing section, and item to unlink). The schema coverage is 100% and the descriptions add meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Unlink' and the specific resource 'a subcontent item from a collection section'. It explicitly clarifies that the subcontent item is not deleted, distinguishing it from destructive operations. This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_content_section or remove_content_from_categories.

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 clearly explains what the operation does and explicitly states what it does NOT do (does not delete the subcontent item). It provides context for when this operation is appropriate, though it does not explicitly contrast it with related tools like add_subcontent or move_subcontent. The negative clarification is strong enough to guide correct usage in most cases.

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