knowmind_unlink_entities

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

Annotations already flag destructive and idempotent, but the description adds real behavioral depth beyond them: inverse and inferred edges are cascaded, the edge persists in history where knowmind_recall_at_time can find it, and the call requires write scope. Cascade scope and the auth requirement are exactly the kind of context an agent cannot get from the hints alone.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effect, then cascading consequence, then idempotency, then the auth prerequisite. Nothing is padding; every clause carries a distinct fact.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the important call-time concerns: cascade effects, history retention, idempotency, and write-scope requirement. It stops short of describing what happens if the named relation does not exist, but that is largely implied by the stated idempotency.

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%, so from_id, to_id and rel_type are already fully documented in the schema, including the UPPER_SNAKE_CASE convention. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('End a relation between two memories') and immediately scopes it against siblings by naming the inverse operation (knowmind_link) and the history lookup tool (knowmind_recall_at_time). An agent can distinguish this from knowmind_link_entities without opening either 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?

It gives one usage scenario ('Fixes a wrong knowmind_link'), which implies when to reach for it, but never states when NOT to use it or names an explicit alternative tool for corrections. The routing signal is implied rather than spelled out.

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