unlink_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose return values and an error case ({"ok": true, "removed": n} and NOT_FOUND). However, it does not state whether unlinking is reversible, what permissions are required, or any destructive side effects beyond link removal.

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 core behavior is front-loaded, but the description is duplicated in Chinese and English, creating redundancy rather than added clarity. It remains reasonably short and does not bury the key relation-empty rule.

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, no output schema, and five parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves important gaps: parameter meanings for client/project/from_id/to_id, required permissions, and reversibility are absent. Return shape and NOT_FOUND are covered, but the overall definition is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 explain all five parameters, but it only clarifies relation semantics and does not explain from_id, to_id, client, or project. An agent must infer the meanings of most parameters from their names alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: remove links between two memories, with scope details such as either-direction removal and clearing all relations when relation is empty. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling link_memory tool.

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?

Provides implied usage guidance by explaining that an empty relation removes all relations for the pair, but it does not explicitly compare when to use this tool versus link_memory or list_links, nor does it state prerequisites.

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