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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the success response ('Returns 204', i.e. no body) and the required auth scope (`tasks:write`), neither of which is in the structured fields.

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 short, front-loaded sentences; the destructive action is stated first, followed by the response code and auth scope. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 simple single-record delete, the description covers the action, the outcome (204, no payload) and the auth scope, while annotations carry destructiveness. The one remaining gap is how the agent should discover a valid relationshipIdentifier before calling.

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 75% and 'ref' plus the account/workspace parameters are documented in the schema. 'by identifier' hints that relationshipIdentifier is an opaque ID, but the description never says what form it takes or how to obtain it, and relationshipIdentifier itself is undocumented. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Delete a relationship by identifier'), which is unambiguous and separable from pm_delete_task and pm_create_task_relationship. It doesn't explicitly say how it differs from those siblings, but the verb+resource pair is specific enough to route correctly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g. use pm_list_task_relationships to find the identifier first). The only usage signal is implied by the tool name and the word 'delete'.

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