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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful blast-radius context beyond that: nothing is destroyed except the link, and an orphaned child is promoted to a top-level item — a non-obvious post-condition that prevents an agent from assuming data loss.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the non-destructive guarantee, then the edge-case outcome. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description supplies the key return-relevant fact (child becomes top-level if left homeless), which is what an agent most needs. Missing only failure behavior for a non-existent edge, which is largely covered by the idempotentHint annotation.

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% for both node_key parameters, so the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline is 3. The description implies the parent/child link being removed but adds no format, nesting, or ordering details beyond what the schema states.

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 and resource — 'Unlink an item from its parent in a bundle' — and defines the bundle domain parenthetically as an ordered outline of memories. It also draws the boundary against the neighboring node-deletion tools by asserting 'Neither item is deleted, only the link between them', so an agent can tell it apart from muninn_bundle_node_delete and muninn_bundle_edge_add.

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 context of use is implied by 'unlink an item from its parent', and the clarification about non-deletion steers away from delete tools. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing to alternatives such as muninn_bundle_edge_move (reparenting) or muninn_bundle_node_delete for actual removal of an item.

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