memory_graph_unrelate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the edge is kept for audit, removed from query results, and can be revived by re-asserting the same triple. This is valuable behavioral context beyond a simple 'retract' action, though it does not address edge cases like non-existent edges.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no fluff. Every clause adds useful information: retraction, audit marker, removal from results, and revival on re-assertion.

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 core effect and audit behavior are covered, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, parameter semantics are undocumented, and there is no guidance on usage conditions or error scenarios. For a simple 3-parameter tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, and the description does not explain the three parameters (src, relation, dst). It only refers to 'the same triple' without describing their formats or meaning. The agent must rely solely on the parameter names, which are not fully self-explanatory.

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The description uses a specific verb 'Retract a relation' and clearly states the effect: the edge is marked superseded and removed from memory_graph results. It also distinguishes from siblings like memory_graph_relate and memory_graph by focusing on removal and audit behavior.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or compare with memory_supersede or memory_forget. The intended usage is only implied by the verb 'Retract'.

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