memory_graph_unrelate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so excellently. It discloses that the edge is not deleted but marked superseded, remains available for audit, exits memory_graph results, and can be revived by re-asserting the triple. This gives the agent a clear model of the tool's effects.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action in the first two words. The dash and second sentence efficiently convey the audit and revival behavior without wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with three required string parameters, an output schema is present, and the description explains the essential behavioral outcomes: removal from active results, audit retention, and revival on re-assertion. It could additionally mention behavior when the triple does not exist, but this is a minor 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for src, relation, and dst. The description adds the concept of a 'triple,' which reinforces how the parameters combine, but it does not add detailed parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retract a relation.' It clearly states the behavior: the edge is marked superseded, kept for audit, and removed from memory_graph results. It also distinguishes itself from related operations like memory_graph_relate by describing the retraction and revival semantics.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a relation should be removed from active memory_graph results while preserving it for audit. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as memory_forget or memory_supersede, but the use case is unambiguous.

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