memory_unlink

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: memories remain untouched, which is important for safety. However, it does not mention whether the removal is reversible, what happens if the relation does not exist, or any permissions required.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core action and a key qualifier, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple single-parameter tool with an existing output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools and clarifies the non-destructive aspect. However, it could add context about permanence or error behavior to be fully complete given its complexity.

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 schema provides only a single parameter relation_id with no description (0% coverage). The description implies that relation_id identifies the relation to remove, but it does not clarify its format, where to find it, or any constraints. It offers minimal compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool's action: 'Remove one relation from the memory graph'. It specifies the resource (relation) and the scope (one). The parenthetical 'memories stay untouched' distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_forget, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need to remove a relation without deleting memories) but does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it. The contrast with memory_forget is implied but not stated directly.

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