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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the requestId must be unique per action and reused on retry, and permissions are enforced at workspace, project, and account level — the latter being an auth constraint annotations cannot express.

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 purpose and requestId guidance are front-loaded and tight. But 'Item updates require the current version from get_tasks, get_items, or get_workspace' appears irrelevant to a relationship deletion — there is no version parameter in the schema — so it reads as copied boilerplate that does not earn its place.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers retry/idempotency and permission enforcement reasonably well. It is still incomplete on key points: what 'id' refers to, what happens if the relationship does not exist, and whether removal cascades to related items.

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 0% for 2 parameters. The description clarifies requestId semantics (uniqueness, reuse on retry), which the schema only constrains by length. It never says what 'id' identifies (the relationship's UUID), leaving the primary parameter's meaning to inference from the tool name.

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: 'Remove a relationship between workspace items.' An agent can distinguish this from relationship_create (its inverse) and from association_delete, though the description never names either sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 operational guidance for the idempotency key ('Provide a unique requestId and reuse it when retrying this exact action'), which is useful for retry behavior. However, it never says when to choose this tool over relationship_create or association_delete, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites for the delete itself.

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