unlinkNodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without revealing side effects, irreversibility, error handling if the relationship or nodes don't exist, or whether it affects other data. This is insufficient for a mutating operation.

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 a single direct sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains zero redundant words. It efficiently states the purpose without wasting tokens.

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?

While parameters are fully documented in the schema, the description lacks essential context for a mutating tool such as what happens when no relationship exists, whether deletion is permanent, or what the response is. No annotations or output schema compensate for this gap.

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%, including details like optional 'type' meaning to delete all edge types if unspecified. The description adds no additional parameter context, so it does not exceed the baseline provided by the schema.

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 ('Remove') and identifies the resource ('relationship between two nodes'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like linkNodes (create relationship) and removeNode (delete a node). It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies the tool is used to remove relationships, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It relies on the agent's common sense about relationships versus nodes.

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