unlink_automated_test

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it flags write permission, plan downgrade behavior, automatic automationStatus revert on last link removal, and a 404 when linkId is absent. This goes well beyond the input schema.

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 information-dense sentences with no filler; each clause adds a distinct fact (operation, identifier source, permission, plan gating, side effect, error). Front-loaded with the core action.

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 three-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers permission, error behavior, side effects, and identifier provenance. Nothing essential is missing for selecting or invoking the tool.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds provenance for linkId ('from get_test_case_links or get_manual_test_case') and clarifies accepted caseId forms, which helps correct invocation beyond the schema text.

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 the exact operation ('Remove one automated-test link'), the object ('manual test case'), and the key identifier ('by its linkId'), and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like link_automated_test and bulk_link_automated_tests. An agent can tell immediately what resource is affected.

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 invocation context: requires write permission, is not plan-gated, and describes side effects and error conditions. It doesn't explicitly name when to prefer this over link_automated_test/bulk_link, but the unlink semantics make that self-evident.

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