memory_unlink

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the bidirectional parameter and return type, but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., link must exist), side effects (e.g., timestamps), error conditions, or required permissions. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 concise: a one-line purpose followed by parameter explanations using a simple label-description format. No unnecessary words. Slightly informal but fits MCP expectations.

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 simple tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers core behavior and parameters. However, it misses error handling, prerequisites (e.g., must the link exist?), and does not leverage the output schema to explain return values. Incomplete for full autonomous agent usage.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It adds: from_id is 'Source memory ID', to_id is 'Target memory ID', and bidirectional explains default and effect. This goes beyond the schema's type/title only.

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 clearly states 'Remove a link between two memories,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like memory_link (creates a link) and memory_delete (deletes a memory). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 use when wanting to remove a link between two memories, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives (e.g., memory_link for creation, memory_delete for removing memories with their links). Context signals include 39 sibling tools, but no differentiation is made.

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