zk_remove_link

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 states the action ('Remove a link') but lacks critical details: whether this operation is reversible, if it requires specific permissions, what happens if the link doesn't exist (e.g., error or no-op), or any side effects on note metadata. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured Args section. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the Args formatting adds slight verbosity. Overall, it's efficient and well-organized, with each sentence contributing directly to understanding.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (mutation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers parameter meanings adequately but lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling, effects) and output expectations. For a link removal operation, this leaves gaps that could hinder correct agent invocation.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'source_id' and 'target_id' are note IDs for the link endpoints, and clarifies 'bidirectional' as controlling removal direction. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could note format expectations for IDs.

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 ('Remove a link') and resource ('between two notes'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'zk_delete_note' or 'zk_create_link' beyond the obvious verb difference, missing an opportunity to clarify its unique role in link management versus note deletion.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that a link must exist), contrast with 'zk_create_link' for adding links, or explain scenarios where removal is appropriate (e.g., cleaning up outdated connections). This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.

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