Remove a relation between two items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to_id | Yes | Second item ID | |
| reason | No | Why this change was made (shown to user in change history) | |
| from_id | Yes | First item ID | |
| relation | Yes | The relation type to remove |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds no additional behavioral context. It doesn't clarify what happens if the relation doesn't exist or whether the removal is permanent. With no extra disclosure beyond the annotations, this falls short.
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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. No wasted words.
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?
While the description is clear, it lacks context about side effects, prerequisites, or interaction with the change history (though the reason parameter is described in the schema). Given the simplicity of the tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to since the schema is comprehensive.
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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('a relation between two items'), clearly conveying the tool's function. It contrasts with the sibling tool 'link_items', making the purpose unmistakable.
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 states the operation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. The usage is implied by the verb 'remove' but no exclusions or alternative references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with no obvious duplicates. The only potential overlap is between update_item and update_price, but the descriptions clarify that update_price is specifically for manual price corrections with history tracking.
All tool names follow the snake_case verb_noun pattern consistently (e.g., add_item, create_collection, get_item_graph). Slight deviations like add_to_collection and ping are still predictable and conventional.
With 23 tools, the server sits in the heavy range (16-25). While each tool serves a distinct purpose, the count is higher than typical for a shopping-save app and may feel overwhelming, though not excessive.
The tool surface covers full CRUD for items and collections, relations, history, activity, and utilities. Minor gaps exist—such as no dedicated 'move item between collections' tool—but workarounds are possible using existing tools.
