Unlink a ticket from a customer

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

The description uses the verb 'Remove', which aligns with the 'destructiveHint: true' annotation. However, it does not disclose additional side effects (e.g., whether the ticket remains, permissions needed) beyond what the annotation already conveys. The annotation carries the transparency burden adequately.

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 extremely concise at one sentence. While it avoids fluff, it sacrifices necessary detail for completeness.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without guessing parameter meanings.

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 no explanation of the three required parameters (ticket, company, project). An agent cannot infer what values to provide without additional context.

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 action ('Remove a ticket link') and the resource ('CRM company'), distinguishing it from the inverse sibling tool 'link_customer_ticket'. However, there is slight inconsistency between the title ('customer') and description ('company'), which may cause confusion.

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, such as the sibling 'link_customer_ticket' or other linking tools. There are no prerequisites or context about required prior state (e.g., ticket must be linked).

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