Unlink nodes

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool may refuse based on invariant checks and that success yields no output ('silent'). This adds useful behavioral context not present in the annotations, which already indicate it is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false).

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the action and key behavior, the second provides the alternative tool. Every clause earns its place, and the critical information (removal and refusal) is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the return behavior ('success is silent') and the main failure mode (refusal on invariant breakage). It does not detail other potential errors or side effects, but for a single-edge removal tool with guarded invariants, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 covers all parameters (100% description coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the notion of a 'directed edge' and that the three parameters together identify a unique edge, which clarifies their role beyond the individual schema descriptions. This incremental meaning justifies a 4.

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 verb 'Remove' and the resource 'one directed edge', specifying the identifying parameters (from, label, to). It also names the sibling 'link' as the alternative for creating edges, distinguishing it from the rest of the sibling list.

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?

It explains when the operation will refuse (if it would break graph invariants) and notes that success is silent. It also provides an explicit alternative ('To create an edge use link'), giving the agent a clear routing cue, though it does not enumerate all possible alternative tools beyond link.

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