slipbox_remove_link

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral details. It explains the 'bidirectional' parameter but does not mention side effects such as error behavior when the link does not exist, whether the operation is reversible, or permission requirements. This is a notable gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise and well-structured with an Args block that lists each parameter. It avoids unnecessary verbosity and is appropriately sized for a simple tool with three parameters.

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 tool is relatively simple, and the description covers the basic functionality and the meaning of the bidirectional flag. However, it omits critical context such as how it differs from slipbox_delete_link, whether missing links cause errors, and any effects on the underlying notes. Given no output schema or annotations, the description is not fully complete.

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 description provides brief explanations for each parameter ('ID of the source note', 'ID of the target note', 'If true, removes links in both directions'), which adds some meaning beyond the bare schema types and titles. However, the explanations are fairly obvious and do not deeply elaborate on formats or edge cases, so it does not fully compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 states 'Remove a link between two notes' with a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tool slipbox_delete_link, which likely performs a similar function, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus slipbox_delete_link or slipbox_create_link. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions for appropriate use, so it provides minimal usage direction.

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