Unlink Documents

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, but the description adds valuable context: the operation is bidirectional ('both directions') and gracefully handles non-existent links ('reports that cleanly'). This goes beyond the annotation flags and gives the agent a better mental model.

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?

Two sentences, zero fluff. The main action and a key edge case are stated upfront. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with two simple string parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential behavior: what is removed, the bidirectional scope, and the no-op case. The main gap is parameter format, but that is more of a parameter semantics issue. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 descriptions cover 0% of parameters, so the description must compensate. It only refers to 'two documents' without explaining what format source_doc and target_doc should take (e.g., IDs, paths, names). The parameter names provide some clue, but the description adds little beyond that.

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 a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('link between two documents'), and clarifies 'both directions.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vault_link_doc (which creates links) and vault_remove_doc (which removes documents entirely).

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 makes the core operation clear, and the sibling context implies it is the inverse of vault_link_doc. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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