unlink

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds the return type (JSON string confirming removal). It does not disclose other behaviors such as error handling or whether the removal is reversible.

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 with a clear main sentence and parameter list. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Minor improvement possible by structuring parameter descriptions more clearly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (returning JSON), the description covers essential info but lacks context on error cases, prerequisites, or whether both memories must exist. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides brief but useful explanations for both parameters (source_id and target_id as UUIDs of source and target memories). This adds meaning beyond the schema, though more detail could be included.

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 it removes a link between two memories, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'link_memories' implicitly. However, it could be more explicit about what constitutes a 'link' in this context.

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 like 'delete_triple' or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions for safe usage.

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