unlink_resource

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses critical behavioral traits: the tool only removes associations without deleting resources, resources remain usable by other nodes, associations can be re-established, and it includes important safety recommendations about confirming impacts and recording changes.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Use cases, Usage recommendations, Important notes, Return data) and every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the core purpose statement earlier, but overall it's efficient and organized.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent completeness. It covers purpose, workflow integration, behavioral implications, parameter context, and even documents the return data structure, compensating fully for the lack of structured metadata.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the parameter sources (e.g., 'must be obtained from list_graphs return data' is implied in the usage recommendations), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already documents. It earns a 4 for contextual integration.

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 specific action ('unlink resource associations from nodes') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'delete_resource' by emphasizing it only removes associations, not the resource itself. The verb+resource combination is precise and 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool, including a prerequisite workflow (use with 'list_graphs' and 'get_node_details'), specific use cases (adjust, remove incorrect, reorganize), and recommendations for confirmation and recording changes. It clearly distinguishes from deletion operations.

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