knowmind_unlink

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds genuine value beyond those by disclosing the cascade side effect ('the inverse edge is removed with it') and the write-scope requirement, which annotations don't state. No contradiction 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?

Three sentences with zero waste: the primary action and its most important side effect are front-loaded, followed by idempotency, a use case, and a scope requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive, idempotent delete tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete — it specifies the action, the cascade side effect, the intended use case, and the required authorization scope. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents from_id, to_id, and rel_type. The description's 'typed relation between two memory nodes' maps onto the parameters but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 and resource ('Delete a typed relation between two memory nodes') and adds a key distinguishing behavior (the inverse edge is removed with it). It clearly contrasts with the sibling knowmind_link that creates relations, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the use case ('Use to correct a wrong link created via knowmind_link') and the creation counterpart, plus a prerequisite ('Requires write scope'). It gives clear when-to-use context, though it doesn't enumerate exclusions against other sibling tools like knowmind_update_fact.

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