unlink_file_from_library

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without explaining side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens to the file/library relationship. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the operation's impact.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and free of extraneous words. It earns its place by stating the core purpose, though it lacks additional context that could enhance clarity without becoming verbose.

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?

The description is minimal and does not cover important contextual aspects like return values, side effects, or the concept of 'component library' (which appears unexplained). Given no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without enough information to fully anticipate the tool's behavior or response.

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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters (fileId and libraryId) with clear descriptions, so the schema provides the necessary meaning. The tool description adds no additional context about parameter usage or relationships beyond the schema, hitting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Unlink') and the resource ('a file from a component library'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'link_file_to_library' by using the opposite verb, though it doesn't explicitly name that alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives, such as 'link_file_to_library' or 'get_file_libraries'. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema.

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