memory_unlink

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Zero-lag invalidation' gestures at immediate consistency but is unexplained jargon; nothing is said about whether underlying memories survive, whether deletion is reversible, what happens when the edge does not exist, or what permissions are required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the mutating action comes first. It is efficient, though brevity here comes at the cost of the missing behavioral and usage detail noted above.

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?

This is an unannotated destructive tool with no output schema and no explanation of return values, failure modes, or side effects on the linked memories. Given the mutation risk, the definition leaves an agent without enough context to call it safely.

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%, with each of the three parameters documented inline, including the default relation label 'OWNS'. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate; notably the required source_id/target_id pair is never acknowledged in prose.

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 ('Delete') plus a precise resource ('explicit directed relationship edge'), which lets an agent distinguish this from memory_forget (deleting memories) and from memory_link (creating edges). It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from terminology alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus memory_forget, memory_link, or memory_induce_edges, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The word 'explicit' hints that induced edges are out of scope, but that requires inference rather than guidance.

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