akb_unlink

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining this destructive operation. It usefully discloses that omitting relation removes all explicit relations and that implicit relations are managed elsewhere, but it doesn't mention permission requirements, reversibility, what happens if no relation exists, or the acknowledgement flow.

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?

Three sentences, each adding distinct information: the core action, how implicit relations are handled, and the wildcard behavior. The primary verb and resource are front-loaded with no filler or repetition.

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 low-complexity tool with a richly documented schema, the description covers the core semantics and the main ambiguity (explicit vs implicit relations). It omits return/error behavior and safety context, but the operation is straightforward and no output schema is expected.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters including the relation enum and the ack parameter. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the input schema states; the 'omit relation' behavior is already captured in the relation property description.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Remove'), names the exact resource (explicit same-vault relation between two resources), and immediately distinguishes explicit from implicit relations. This clearly differentiates it from relation-creation or editing tools like akb_link and akb_edit without needing schema inspection.

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?

It gives clear guidance on when this tool applies: only explicit relations, and it notes the alternative path for implicit relations via editing the source document. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or enumerate edge cases where another operation is preferable, so it stops short of a full routing statement.

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