Unlink Automated Test

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by disclosing the side effect that automationStatus reverts to Manual when the last link is removed, the permission requirement, the plan-gating exemption, and the 404 failure mode. This is exactly the mutation behavior an agent needs before calling.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and the key parameter. Preconditions follow before the edge-case behavior, which is a sensible ordering.

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 destructive 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, side effects, and error behavior. Annotations handle safety signaling and the schema handles parameter formats, so nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so caseId, linkId, and projectId are already documented in the schema. The description restates that linkId is the linkedTests[]._id and echoes the accepted ID forms without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Remove) plus resource (one automated-test link from a manual test case) and the identifying key (linkId). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling link_automated_test, bulk_link_automated_tests, and get_test_case_links.

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?

Gives clear context: write permission required, plan gating is not a blocker, and 404 fires when the linkId does not belong to the case. It also routes the agent to get_test_case_links / get_manual_test_case for sourcing the linkId, though it does not explicitly contrast itself against a bulk-removal path.

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