memora

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully documents the bidirectional removal behavior and indicates the return type ('Dict with removed links'), but fails to disclose error handling (e.g., behavior when link doesn't exist), idempotency, or whether the operation is destructive/reversible.

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 docstring format with Args/Returns sections is efficient and appropriately structured. The content is front-loaded with no filler text, though the Returns description ('Dict with removed links') is somewhat vague and could be more specific about the structure without violating conciseness.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no safety annotations, the description covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks critical behavioral context such as error conditions, idempotency guarantees, or side effects. Given the presence of an output schema (mentioned in context), the brief return description is acceptable but the safety/operational gaps are notable.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, requiring the description to fully compensate. It excellently documents all three parameters: `from_id` and `to_id` are semantically labeled as 'Source' and 'Target' memory IDs, and `bidirectional` includes both behavioral explanation ('also remove reverse link') and default value information not present in 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 clearly states the core action ('Remove a link between two memories') with a specific verb and resource type. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this operation from sibling tools like `memory_delete` (which removes memories themselves) or clarify that this targets relationships rather than entities.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., `memory_delete`), nor does it mention prerequisites such as whether the memories must exist or whether the link must exist beforehand. There are no 'when-not-to-use' exclusions or workflow context.

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