remove_link

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and does not mention side effects, irreversibility, error conditions, or required states (e.g., link must 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 a single sentence of eight words, efficiently conveying the core action. It is front-loaded with the verb and contains 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?

Although the tool is simple, the description lacks contextual information such as the lab scope (implied by lab_id), expected effects on the topology, and any error behavior. With an output schema present but not described, the agent has no guidance on response semantics either.

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 input schema has two required parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not mention lab_id or link_id, nor does it explain their roles. The phrase 'between two nodes' could confuse an agent about why no node IDs are parameters, and the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Remove' and identifies the resource as 'a link between two nodes,' which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like add_link and remove_node. It is unambiguous about the action performed.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool, how it relates to alternatives, or any prerequisites. It simply states the action without context, so an agent has no information about when this is appropriate.

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