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

Annotations establish this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: what is removed (the association only) and what survives (both Memories plus a retry receipt). This explains why destructiveHint is false for a 'remove' operation and touches on retry behavior.

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 or repetition; the constraint 'only an explicit personal association' leads and the preservation guarantee follows. It is efficient, though very terse relative to the operation's concurrency semantics.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with annotation coverage, the description states the key behavioral contract (association removed, memories preserved). It does not address permission requirements or what the retry receipt contains, but with no output schema and full schema coverage this is adequate rather than rich.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about memory_id, relationship_id, or expected_version beyond what the schema already documents, and the schema itself covers the VERSION_CONFLICT behavior.

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 gives a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('an explicit personal association'), and the qualifier 'only' plus 'preserving both Memories' clarifies this is not a memory deletion, which separates it from siblings like forget or restore_memory. It stops short of naming an alternative outright.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g., update_memory_relationship or link_memories). The phrase 'only an explicit personal association' hints at a scope restriction but leaves the selection decision entirely to inference.

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