knowmind_unlink

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by stating that the inverse edge is also deleted, which is behavioral insight beyond the annotations. It also notes the scope requirement, enhancing transparency. No contradictions with annotations.

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, each adding essential information: the primary action and a key behavioral detail (inverse edge deletion). No redundancy or unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 delete operation with three parameters, the description covers the necessary information: action, resource, side effect (inverse edge deletion), and required scope. No output schema is needed. The description is complete given the tool's 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Memory-ID des Zielknotens'). The tool description does not add extra semantic information beyond what is already in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it deletes a typed relationship between two memory nodes, with the verb 'Löscht' and explicit mention of the resource. It also notes that the inverse edge is also deleted, providing clarity on the operation's scope. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'knowmind_link' which creates relationships.

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 mentions the prerequisite 'Scope write erforderlich' (scope write required), implying when to use (when write access is available). While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, the sibling tool 'knowmind_link' suggests that this tool is for removal. A more explicit 'use this to remove a relationship, not to create one' would be better, but the context is clear.

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