delete_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses idempotency, that dry_run=false is a write requiring the link write scope, that dry_run=true merely reports, and it enumerates the result values. It does not cover auth-failure or error behavior, but the core mutation semantics are unusually well disclosed.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and idempotency, followed by the write scope and return values. Every sentence adds distinct information with no waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values (though it does). Behavior for a mutation is well covered, but for a 6-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, the four required entity/type identifier parameters remain opaque, leaving a real gap for correct invocation.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the from/to direction via 'directed link' and reiterates the dry_run default already present in the schema; from_type, from_id, to_type, to_id, and trace_id remain unexplained, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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') and a specific resource ('a directed link between an experiment and an item'), which distinguishes it from ensure_link and bulk_delete_links in the sibling list. It is clear and specific, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tool to route against, keeping it from a 5.

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 clarifies the dry_run default and the consequence of each mode, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over bulk_delete_links for multiple removals, so the when-to-use guidance is only implied.

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