aim_memory_unlink

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the behavioral effect (removes links, keeps memories) and covers parameter behavior via examples. However, it lacks details on reversibility, error cases (e.g., non-existent relations), or permission requirements, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 well-structured with sections for database selection, location override, and examples. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While it is somewhat verbose, all content adds clarity, and the examples are particularly helpful.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main function, parameter usage, and key scenarios. It lacks details on return values or error handling, but the provided information is sufficient for correct invocation in typical cases.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the location parameter with a 'LOCATION OVERRIDE' section and illustrating context and location usage through multiple examples, providing more context than the schema alone.

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 explicitly states 'Remove links between memories' and clarifies that it keeps the memories but removes connections. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like aim_memory_add_facts and aim_memory_remove_facts, which add or remove facts rather than links.

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 database selection guidance and location override details, with examples showing different contexts. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or directly name alternative tools for comparison, leaving some ambiguity for agents unfamiliar with the domain.

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