hcl_stage_unlink

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds the useful constraint 'exactly one reciprocal' (a paired link, one at a time), which is real behavioral context. It does not say what happens if the link is absent, whether the change is undoable, or what permissions the stage requires.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and object arrive immediately. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, which is a completeness problem rather than a conciseness one.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell which port names belong to which device, what format the endpoints take, or how idempotency_key should be used to retry a non-idempotent removal.

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 7 parameters, so the description is the only place parameter meaning could come from, and it names none of them. Only the phrase 'reciprocal' faintly hints that a/b and a_port/b_port are the two endpoints of the link; stage_name, project_path, and idempotency_key are entirely unexplained.

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'), resource ('reciprocal saved link'), and scope ('isolated copy'), which is enough to separate it from hcl_stage_link, the obvious inverse sibling. It falls short of 5 because the 'isolated copy' wording is the only signal of the staging context and the description never names the sibling it contrasts with.

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?

'From an isolated copy' implies this is the staged-edit counterpart to a live operation, giving the agent implied context. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no named alternative such as hcl_stage_link or hcl_remove_acl, so the agent must infer the routing.

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