slipbox_delete_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly conveys deletion and adds a meaningful edge-case behavior: it errors when no link exists. It does not discuss side effects, permissions, or reversibility, but for a targeted link deletion this is reasonably 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 compact and front-loaded, with the primary action first, the differentiating behavior second, and parameter explanations last. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the action, the key error condition, both parameter roles, and the distinction from the closest sibling. An output schema exists, so return-value details do not need to be spelled out here.

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 fully compensates by explaining both parameters: source_id is the note containing the link, and target_id is the note being linked to. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema property names.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a specific link from one note to another.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling slipbox_remove_link by noting its error behavior, so an agent can tell the two apart without inspecting schemas.

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 explicitly names the sibling slipbox_remove_link and explains the key difference: this tool returns an error if no link exists. This makes the choice between the two tools clear, though it stops short of stating an explicit 'use this when you need...' rule.

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