memory_graph_unrelate

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: the edge is marked superseded but kept for audit, and re-asserting revives it. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the audit/revival semantics. Minor gap: doesn't explicitly note non-idempotency, but annotations cover that.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action (retract a relation) followed by the behavioral detail (audit-kept, revival). 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?

Given annotations cover safety (destructive, not idempotent) and an output schema exists (so return details are not needed), the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation. A slight gap remains: no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over nearby alternatives, but the core behavior is well-specified.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents src, relation, and dst. The description adds no additional semantics for these parameters. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (retract) and resource (a relation/edge in the memory graph), and distinguishes itself from the sibling memory_graph_relate by describing the opposite operation. An agent can distinguish this from graph_relate without opening schemas.

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?

Clear implied context: use when a relation should be retracted / removed from graph results. The mention of revival on re-assertion gives the agent a hint about reversibility. However, no explicit 'when to use this vs alternatives' (e.g., vs memory_forget, memory_supersede, memory_set_remove) is given.

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