unrelate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the edge drops out of current reads while history survives, that the triple form 'closes the single open match', and that endedAt defaults to now. It does not cover failure modes (no open match, multiple open matches, permission requirements), which is the only remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its key distinction, then parameter guidance. It is dense — three parenthetical explanations in four sentences — but every clause adds information an agent needs; nothing is 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?

Covers the two identification modes, temporal defaults, the correction-vs-close distinction, and the read-visibility consequence; an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The one thing an agent might still want — what happens when zero or multiple open edges match — is left implicit in 'the single open match'.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds decision-level meaning beyond the schema: it explains the either/or between relations/{uid} and the triple form, states that endedAt defaults to now, and clarifies that supersededBy is for corrections while omission means a pure close.

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?

States a specific verb (end a relation) with a specific temporal mechanism (closing the edge with valid_until), and immediately distinguishes itself from both `relate` (its inverse) and `forget` (which deletes rather than preserves). An agent can pick it out of a 60-tool sibling list without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly frames itself as 'the temporal counterpart to relate' and gives concrete when-to-use scenarios (someone left a job, a project ended). It also names the wrong-tool alternative and the consequence: 'unlike forget, which deletes the edge' — history is preserved here.

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