memory_unlink

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly communicates the mutation (removing edges) and the conditional behavior when relationship is omitted: all directed edges from source to target are removed. This is a meaningful nuance beyond a simple 'unlink'. It does not cover return values or failure modes, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the conditional behavior follows naturally. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential operational details: what is removed, the role of relationship, and the directionality of edges. It does not mention error behavior or idempotency, but these are not critical for an agent to correctly invoke the tool in most cases.

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 compensate for parameter semantics. It explicitly explains the optional relationship parameter and its default behavior (all directed edges removed when omitted). Source and target memory IDs are self-explanatory from the parameter names and 'from source to target' phrasing. This is sufficient for an agent to construct valid arguments.

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 verb 'Remove' and the resource 'graph edges between two memories', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_link (which likely creates edges) and memory_delete (which likely deletes entire memories). The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 implies the tool is used when you want to remove edges between two memory nodes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or contraindications. The guidance is adequate but relies on inference.

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