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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing an approval requirement ('requires approval by default'), which explains the approval_id parameter and the expected workflow. It doesn't explain reversibility or what happens to dependent data, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the removal condition is front-loaded and the destructive/approval warning follows. The first sentence is a bare subordinate clause without an explicit subject or verb, which is slightly awkward but not wasteful.

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 mutation with an output schema, rich annotations, and fully documented parameters, the description supplies the missing pieces: the user intent that triggers it and the approval requirement. Nothing critical for correct invocation is absent, though a note on irreversibility or post-delete state would make it fully complete.

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 both relationship_id and approval_id are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The phrase 'requires approval by default' loosely connects to the approval_id parameter but adds no format, sourcing, or constraint detail beyond what the schema states.

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 tool name and title make the verb+resource (delete a relationship) unambiguous, and the description reinforces it with 'a recorded relationship... the user wants it removed.' It's clear but stated as a trigger condition rather than an explicit 'deletes the relationship record,' and it never distinguishes itself from relationships.create or relationships.list beyond the obvious.

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 a concrete when-to-use condition ('when a recorded relationship is wrong or no longer applies'), which is actionable context. It does not name an alternative course of action (e.g., correcting via relationships.update) or state any exclusions, so it stops short of the 5-level routing guidance.

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