maltego_delete_link

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

The description discloses the return behavior: confirmation string or a note if the link ID is not found, adding context beyond the annotations. The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description is consistent with these. No contradictions detected.

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 extremely concise and well-structured, with a short summary followed by clear args and returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose, parameter, and return behavior, including the not-found case. It assumes the graph is active (implied by 'active graph') but doesn't explicitly state prerequisites like graph must be loaded or active, which is a minor gap. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need for detailed return documentation.

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?

The description adds a cross-reference to maltego_list_links for obtaining the link_id, which is helpful beyond the schema's basic description. Although the schema already describes the parameter, the extra usage context enhances clarity for the AI agent.

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 explicitly states 'Delete a single link (edge) from the active graph by id.' It clearly identifies the action (delete), resource (link/edge), and simplifies by referencing the source for the ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like maltego_add_link or maltego_delete_entity.

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 explains the tool's intent and references maltego_list_links to obtain the link ID, providing guidance on how to prepare. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to other deletion alternatives, which would further clarify usage boundaries.

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