unlink

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real value by disclosing the bi-temporal semantics — historical reads still observe the retracted edge — which tells the agent this is a soft/retractable rather than hard delete. It omits error behavior (nonexistent edge), idempotency, and permission requirements.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the qualifying temporal detail. Nothing can be trimmed without losing information.

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 5-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key semantic (retraction is not erasure) but leaves gaps: what happens when the edge does not exist or is ambiguous, whether the call is idempotent, and what the result reports on partial cloud mirroring (only covered inside the schema).

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 80%, so the schema already documents `from`, `to`, `cloud`, and `edge_type` in detail. The top-level description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, and `initiative` carries no description anywhere. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ("Retract") and resource ("a previously-asserted edge"), which clearly reads as the inverse of the sibling `link`. It does not explicitly name `link` or contrast with other removal-ish siblings (forget, supersede, refute), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is given. With siblings such as `supersede`, `refute`, `forget`, and `rechain` also removing or invalidating relationships, the agent gets no help choosing `unlink` over them.

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