unlink_hipocampo

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

The description states that the tool deletes a link and returns a confirmation, but with no annotations, the burden is on the description to disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, whether deletion is permanent, permission requirements, or behavior when the link does not exist.

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 structured with a clear one-line purpose, an Args section, and a Returns section. Each sentence is informative and there is no unnecessary filler, though the format could be slightly more compact.

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?

The description covers the common invocation modes (by id or by source/target/type) and the return value, but it lacks edge-case behavior such as what happens if both id and source_id are provided, or if neither is provided. It also does not explain how this tool fits within the broader tool set for graph manipulation.

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?

Given zero description coverage in the schema, the description effectively explains each parameter's role and the conditional logic (id vs source_id+target_id+relation_type). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults, though it could clarify whether source_id is required when id is absent.

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 action ('Elimina un enlace' = deletes a link) and the resource ('grafo de memoria' = memory graph). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_hipocampo, which likely deletes nodes, and link_hipocampo, which creates links.

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 conditional parameter guidance (use id if known, otherwise source+target+type) but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_hipocampo or other graph operations. There is no mention of prerequisite conditions or contexts where this tool is preferred.

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