memory_unlinkRemoves a single relation from the memory graph by relation ID, leaving the linked memories unchanged. Use it to correct or clean up connections without deleting memory content.
Remove one relation from the memory graph (memories stay untouched).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| relation_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description's real contribution is the blast-radius clarification that memories themselves are untouched; it adds nothing about behavior when the relation_id doesn't exist or whether related nodes are affected.
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?
One compact sentence, scope constraint front-loaded, zero filler. Nothing to trim.
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?
Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the destroy/memory-preservation scope is clear. But for a destructive mutation with an undocumented identifier parameter, missing guidance on where relation_id comes from and on no-op/error behavior leaves a real gap.
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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description should explain relation_id (format, where to obtain it, e.g. from memory_relations). It says nothing, leaving the only parameter undocumented everywhere.
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?
Specific verb ('Remove') plus resource ('one relation from the memory graph'), and the parenthetical 'memories stay untouched' carves out scope against siblings like memory_forget that delete memories. Clear, though it never names the counterpart tool memory_link.
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 statement of when to use this versus memory_forget, memory_relations, or memory_link. The inverse relationship to memory_link is only inferable from names, not stated. An agent must guess the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.