goclaw_agent_links_remove

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects agent functionality, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple operation and front-loads the essential information.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'delegation link' means in this context, what the consequences of removal are, whether the operation is idempotent, or what response to expect. Given the complexity of agent relationships, more context is needed.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (agent_id as source, target_agent_id as target to unlink). This meets the baseline when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and resource ('delegation link between agents'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'goclaw_agent_links_set' (which presumably creates links) or explain what a 'delegation link' entails in this system.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing link must exist), error conditions, or when to choose this over other agent management tools like 'goclaw_agent_delete' or 'goclaw_agent_update'.

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