memory_graph_unrelate

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial nuance beyond them: the retraction is a soft delete ('marked superseded (kept for audit)') rather than a hard erase, it removes the edge from memory_graph results, and re-asserting the same triple revives it. This materially changes how an agent should treat the 'destructive' operation.

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Two tight sentences: the core effect (superseded, kept for audit, removed from results) is front-loaded and the revival behavior follows. No filler.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering return values, the description's remaining job is the soft-delete/revival semantics, which it delivers well. It could still be strengthened by contrasting with the relate/supersede siblings, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% (src/relation/dst each documented), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description alludes to the triple structure ('the same triple') but adds no format, syntax, or edge-resolution detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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States a specific verb ('Retract') and resource ('a relation') and describes the effect (edge marked superseded, leaves memory_graph results). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby sibling memory_graph_relate or memory_supersede, so an agent must infer the pairing, but the operation itself is 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?

Usage is implied by the operation (retracting an existing triple), and the revival note hints at reversibility, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative despite siblings like memory_graph_relate and memory_supersede. Minimum viable.

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