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

Annotations already signal destructive/write behavior, and the description adds useful context: the edge is removed rather than the people themselves, an API key is required, and the operation costs $0.10. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Extremely concise with no filler; the action is front-loaded and the pricing/auth detail is compactly appended in parentheses.

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, paid tool with zero required parameters, the description leaves critical ambiguity about how to identify the graph edge and which parameters are needed. The output schema helps, but it cannot compensate for the missing usage and parameter-selection guidance.

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 only 40%, and person_id, connection_id, and other_person_id are undocumented. The description's 'person↔person' phrasing only weakly implies the two person IDs and does not clarify how connection_id relates to them or whether both IDs are required.

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 names the verb and resource: 'Remove a person↔person graph edge.' It distinguishes the tool's core action from nearby tools like link_people without explicitly naming alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus link_people, merge_people, or link_entities. The agent must infer the inverse relationship from sibling tool names, which is not reliable.

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